San Mateo County Genealogical Society's Blog featuring society events, projects, meeting notes and other items of relevance to genealogists.
Showing posts with label National Archives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Archives. Show all posts

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Pay Back time?

The National Archives instituted a "Citizen Archivist Week of Service" for January 15-19.  Click here to join them in the Citizen Archivist Challenge to tag or transcribe 2018 pages in the National Archives Catalog.


This is one of many ways you can pay it back to the genealogical community for all the wonderful information you find online.  Another national possibility is to work with FamilySearch on one of their many Indexing Projects. With over 100 projects there is something of interest for everyone.




On the local level the San Mateo County Genealogical Society has numerous opportunities to contribute.  You could join the indexing team onsite at the Colma Historial Museum as  they index the Mortuary Books of Valente, Marini, Perata and Co. Or, if you'd rather work in the southern part of the county, there are a couple projects that we'd like to start at the San Mateo County Historical Association Museum.  We also have an opportunity to work on a project from home.  Contact publications@smcgs.org if you would like to volunteer.


Another alternative is share your genealogy online.  Whether it is in a blog or on a website, a family tree or a story or just a great genealogical find, sharing with others is not only satisfying but also a great way to pay back the genealogical community that shares with you.



Wednesday, January 4, 2017

NARA: Criminal Case Files 3




The Case of the Chapman Pirates
Martha Wallace

The Cyane (left) loomed over the 
J M Chapman (right) after capturing 
it in March 1863.
Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, 
May 9, 1863

Criminal Cases US Circuit Court 1863-1917    

Box 1, Cases 7 & 8. United States v Ridgley Greathouse, et al.
Box 1, Cases 7 & 8. United States v the schooner J M Chapman, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, cargo, arms, and ammunition; Paul Shirley, commander of the USS Cyane, the officers and crew.

During the Civil War, gold from California was an important resource for the Union, helping to fund the war. Ulysses S. Grant once said on the topic of California’s support to the war effort, “I do not know what we would do in this great national emergency if it were not for the gold sent from California.” 

The Big Plan
In 1862 a group of Confederate sympathizers put together a plan to arm a schooner and lie outside the Golden Gate and along the Pacific Coast down to Manzanillo, Mexico, and capture ships filled with gold and silver headed to the east coast (there were still a lot of gold shipments at this time). The captured ships would be used as privateers with a commission from the Confederate government. The gold and silver would be used to purchase arms for the captured ships as well as for sending money to the Confederacy. Then they would have California secede from the Union and join the Confederacy. The leaders were Ridgeley Greathouse, Asbury Harpending, and Alfred Rubery.

Asbury Harpending visited Confederate President Jefferson Davis in Richmond and received a letter of marque, a government license authorizing the fitting out of an armed ship to use to capture enemy ships.

Ridgley Greathouse was the one with the money. He was a wealthy banker who had been involved in northern California mining and stage lines.

They gathered other southern sympathizers, many of them members of the Knights of the Golden Circle, a secret society working to undermine Union military efforts to defeat the South.

Daily Alta California, Volume 15, 
Number 4764, 
11 March 1863
They purchased a fast 90-ton clipper schooner, the J M Chapman, for $6500 and outfitted it with arms (two 12-pound-shot cannons, rifles, pistols, gunpowder, and other equipment of war). The ship was advertised to sail from Jackson Wharf in San Francisco on March 9, 1863. 

There were 22 men involved in this case:
Ridgeley Greathouse, Asbury Harpending, Alfred Rubery, William C. Law, Lorenzo L. Libby, James Smith, John W. McFadden, William D. Ward, John E. Kent, John Fletcher, Thomas W. Brunds, William W. Mason, George W. Davis, Albion T. Crow, Madison H. Marshall, Thomas Poole, Alfred Aumond, Henry C. Boyd, Joseph W. Smith, Richard H. Duval, Gideon C. Jones and Joseph G. Baldwin Junior.

Betrayal
Someone warned the authorities. On March 14, 1863, they were ready to sail out of San Francisco, but they kept waiting for the captain/navigator, William Law, to return to the ship. He may have been out getting drunk or he may have been talking to the authorities; or they may have been planning to sail at daybreak. Some sources name Captain W. E. Travers of the Hornet, as the informant. The crew of the J M Chapman went to sleep on board the ship.

The Journal of San Diego History
April 1961
At dawn, on March 15, the US Naval ship, USS Cyane and a police tug came alongside with cannons trained on the Chapman. The Cyane crew boarded the Chapman and arrested everyone.

The 22 men were imprisoned on Alcatraz Island in Fort Alcatraz, and set for trial, accused of treason. The fort began functioning as a military prison in 1861 and in 1863 it was used to hold private citizens accused of treason.



The Trial
The trial began on October 2, 1863. The indictment was for “assisting, aiding and comforting the existing Rebellion against the United States.”

Greathouse, Harpending, and Rubery were found guilty of giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States and sentenced to ten years in prison and a fine of $10,000.

Daily Alta California, 9 Sep 1863
In December 1863 President Lincoln announced a general pardon: anyone who had worked against the Union and then signed a loyalty oath could be released. The other members of the crew were freed after swearing an oath of loyalty to the Union. Greathouse, Harpending, and Rubery were released in February 1864 after signing the oath. Their stories after the war are also interesting.                                                

Results: The opinions rendered in this trial by Judge Ogden Hoffman, Jr., set a precedent for defining piracy and treason until World War II.1, 2  The questions addressed were:

Were the men traitors or enemies? The men on the Chapman were tried as traitors not as enemies, because they lived in a state that was in the United States, not in a state that was in the Confederacy. If the Confederate States had been a foreign and independent nation with whom the US was at war, the crime would still have been considered treason.

Was their plan a pirate expedition? Did the Confederate letters of marque affect their status as pirates, traitors, or enemies? When a civil war exists, hostilities committed by vessels under a letter of marque are not an act of piracy.

Who was entitled to prize money (money from the sale of the ship)?
• The J M Chapman was sold as a war prize for $7,000. The money was divided between the United States and the informer, Captain E. W. Travers.
• The members of the crew of the J M Chapman were allowed one month's salary as they were judged innocent of all charges.
• The crew of the USS Cyane, the US warship involved in the capture, sued the US government for the prize money resulting from the sale of the Chapman. Prize money was due to naval crews when a pirate ship was captured. If the Chapman was declared a pirate ship, that meant that the Confederacy was recognized as a separate nation. If the Chapman was a US ship, the crew were guilty of treason and no prize money was due to the Cyane crew.

Later Stories

Asbury Harpending, 
taken during his active career
 in San Francisco. 
Asbury Harpending - Born in Kentucky, his previous adventures included joining a filibuster in Nicaragua, mining in California and Mexico, and joining a conspiracy to create a “Pacific Republic” in California. After the Civil War he got into mining, real estate, and railroads. He was one of the financiers of the Great Diamond Hoax of 1872, along with others such as Horace Greeley, William C Ralston, Baron von Rothschild, and Charles Tiffany. This involved salting land in Wyoming and Colorado with diamonds and was one of the greatest swindles of the time. Asbury Harpending wrote his autobiography in 1913, The Great Diamond Hoax. You can read his version of the whole incident in his own words. It is a rollicking read!3

Marysville Daily Appeal, 
Number 83, 8 April 1864
Ridgely Greathouse - Born in Kentucky, he had come to California where he became a banker and gold miner, owning property in Yreka, Scott Valley, and Shasta Valley. He was the city treasurer in Yreka and operated a canal company and an express and passenger service between Shasta County and Jacksonville, Oregon.  He was rearrested in 1864 for breaking the parole and oath of allegiance he had signed 1861 and 1862 when leaving Kentucky. He was then sent east to Lafayette prison in New York harbor, where he escaped by bribing a guard to bring him a saw to saw through the bars of his window. He swam to shore, walked ten miles to Williamsburg, and crossed over into New York. From there he went to Canada, England, and Mexico, returning to the US under a general amnesty, perhaps to mining in Idaho. He was driving cattle from Texas to Idaho but had to sell the herd in Kansas. He then worked on a ranch near Matador, Texas, until his death.      
    
Alfred Rubery, nephew? of John Bright,
the great British statesman.
Alfred Rubery was born in England, so Lincoln’s amnesty did not cover him. He received a special pardon through the help of John Bright, British Member of Parliament, who appealed to Lincoln. John Bright wanted the man pardoned, and England's friendship was vital; Rubery was pardoned.4
  
Santa Cruz Public Library

  
A crew member who was freed, Tom Poole, came from Loma Prieta in Santa Cruz County. He had been undersheriff of Monterey County. Those areas were hotbeds of Southern sympathy. Tom Poole was finally hung in 1865 in Placerville in the gold country after being involved in a shoot-out at an inn with a posse chasing a bunch of gold robbers – he was one of them – and they were going to send the money to the Confederacy. Another interesting story! 

Another crew member who was freed, John McFadden, in 1864 was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in the State Prison for highway robbery.
 
Footnotes
  1. The Opinon in Case No. 2,602. The CHAPMAN {4Sawy. 501.} District Court, NorthernDistrict California. Jan. 13, 1864.  (LawResource.org) 
  2.  “Treason,” by Henry Mark Holzer, 19 Sep 2005. Article delineating the importance of the Greathouse case in defining treason. (Discoverthenetworks.org)  
  3. The Great Diamond Hoax  Chapter 8  Chapter 9 by Asbury Harpending (BooksaboutCalifornia.com) 
  4. "Diplomat In Carpet Slippers Abraham Lincoln Deals With Foreign Affairs" by Jay Monahan (Internet Archive)

 Some Online Summaries

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

NARA: Admiralty Case Files 1855-1863

By Martha Wallace and Cath Trindle


The Admiralty Case Files include appeals of decisions from both Northern and Southern California district courts. The original lawsuits involved ships with too many passengers, abandoned contracts, damaged goods, cargo not paid for, workers not paid, mistreatment of passengers, and Panama and Nicaragua crossings.  

Although there are only a few dozen cases, they provide a good read as they provide a glimpse into both the good and the bad of life at sea.


Daily Alta California, Volume 5, Number 342, 11 December 1854 (1)

Take the case of Hadji Hassan, Shack Badacrooden/Barrooden, Imangloo aka Mungloo, Thadanu, Shack Azum aka Mamed Dusden, Mumbaruck, Mootee aka Motse, Ameerow aka Amceron, Abdul Kurreen, Ishmael Enduph, Kadir, Edoo, Happian aka Aram Samy, Assenar, Cureen, and Omar Cullender aka Molydin vs. the ship Tartar with Edward A Mix, master, as claimant and Charles B Polhemus (2) and Edward Parker as sureties.  

What at first seemed to be a simple libel (3) for back pay turned out to be much more complicated.


Calcutta Document
Hong Kong document 
According to original documents included in the files, the libellants signed on as lascars (4) on the Tartar either in Calcutta about Oct 1855 or in Hong Kong in Mar of 1856. They agreed to serve for two years at various wages of of which 3 months were paid in advance.

In July of 1856 the Tartar docked in San Francisco.  On Jul 10,  Mix filed a suit claiming desertion by the lascars. On Jul 14 a libel was filed by the lascars for back pay and $1000 damages each.  On the 15th Polhemus and Parker filed a $500 bond as sureties in the case.

In the meantime, on July 12 Hadji Hassan was arrested and brought before the Police Court, charged with assault and battery and on being found guilty sent to county jail for 30 days.  Patrick McCormick and J J Joseph were among the police officers that went to fetch him from the Tartar to face the charges.
Desertion

In court documents dated Feb 1857, they stated that when they went on board the Tartar in Jul 1856, they were met by ironed (handcuffed) men begging to be taken ashore. The ships officers stated that the men were ironed because they wouldn't work.  In turn the men said they couldn't work because the food that they were given was insufficient and rotten.  They stated the forecastle made them sick with the smell of the food, and that they would work if they were given proper food.

They showed the police men their supply of stinking fish and rotten rice. They said the men looked shabby, unhealthy and unfit to work. The captain wanted all the men back in irons so that he could handle them.  J J Joseph attested that one of the "mates" (he wasn't sure if it was the 1st or 2nd) agreed with the men that they were not getting good food.

The case was decided and appealed.  It was unclear who won the original case, perhaps it was the ship, or perhaps the lascars were awarded more than they received after the final appeal. (5)    On 16 Mar 1857 the Decree of the District Court was "reversed" and libellants were to be paid back wages. 


Calculation of Wages Due Lascars, Mar 1857

The ship appealed the 16 Mar 1857 decision, claiming that Henry B. Janes was not entitled to be the Proctor for the lascars.  They provided statements from some of the men stating the same.  Part of the testimony was that the men had been paid their wages in New York.  Perhaps the Admiralty Court Judge decided that any payments in New York were intended to "pay off" the men for their statements, or possibly he felt that the treatment they had received entitled them to more, whatever the reason on  5 Sep 1857 the Admiralty Court Jude he decreed Janes did have the right to represent the men, and ordered that they be paid all amounts due.



Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
(1) "Tartar" was the name of more than one ship at the time, this sale is for the correct ship as the tonnage is the same.  Records for a "Tartar" bringing passengers to Australia about this time might be the same ship, the tonnage is close but not exact.  Searching for "Tartar" with master Mix brings up interesting results but no relevant records were found.
(2) Charles B. Polhemus emigrated to California from South America and founded the house of Also & Co. Commission Merchants in San Francisco.  Moving to the area that is now Central Park in San Mateo about 1858, he was one of the owners of the San Francisco to San Jose Railroad (later Southern Pacific). Biography  Photo Albums
(3)  Libel - In admiralty law - (verb) to bring a suit against someone; (noun) a plaintiff's written declaration.
(4) A Lascar was a sailor or militiaman from South Asia, the Arab world, and other territories situated to the east of the Cape of Good Hope, who were employed on European ships from the 16th century until the middle of the 20th century. (Wikipedia)
(5) This answer might be found in other district court case files. 


Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 


Admiralty Jurisdiction – Pacific Maritime Magazine


Index to Admiralty Case Files 1855-1863

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

NARA: Private Common Law Case Files 1855-1863

Plat of Rancho de las Pulgas - on Calisphere
Martha Wallace & Cath Trindle

This blog presents the first of the indexes to US Northern District Court files held at NARA in San Bruno.

Index to Private Common Law Case Files 1855-1863.  

While most of the US Northern District Court Records have the US government as the complaining party the Private Common Case Law files are an exception.  They provide a glimpse of actions between individuals in the area covered by the court.

The following is an overview of just one case (#56 - Dec 1860)  between residents in San Mateo County.


The defendants, Greer et al.,  were living on land that belonged to Maria de la Soledad Ortega Argüello and Jose Ramon Argüello.  They, Greer et al., claimed that the land was part of Rancho Cañada de Raymundo that had belonged to John Coppinger and now to his heirs.  John Greer, who married Coppinger's wife, Maria Luisa Soto, was his executor.

The decision went to the Argüellos because they had a survey that described the exact metes and bounds of their property, while the map for Rancho Cañada de Raymundo was vague and had not been surveyed.  Ejectment of Greer et al was ordered with some costs awarded to those being ejected.

Some of the documents found in the file include:



  • A copy of original Mexican Land Grant 1835.  This document notes that the land was originally occupied by Jose Dario Argüello by 1800 and that his Spanish grant had been affirmed by the Mexican government to his son Don Luis Argüello in 1835. 
  • A copy of US confirmation of Patent 1853 to Maria Soledad Ortega de Argüello and Jose Ramon Argüello                             
  • A copy of the Official Survey Map
    1835 Land Grant
  • Newsclipping of case circa Dec 1860 paper unknown.  A full article about the Supreme Court decision can be found in the  Sacramento Bee 19 Dec 1864 vol 28 #4288
  • Papers that state John Coppinger became a Mexican citizen and married Maria.  As noted above, Maria was Maria Soto the daughter of Ignacio Soto.  John and Maria had only one child Manuella who married Antonio Miramontes. 
  • A list of  jurors and a list of those that didn't show up 
Also included was a two inch thick pile of documents debating WHO WAS A CITIZEN OF WHERE as the defendants disputed the jurisdiction of the court in the case.  Simon Mezes, agent for the Argüellos, claimed Spanish citizenship and the Arguellos claimed Mexican citizenship. They claimed the defendants were US citizens. The defendants in turn claimed that Mezes and the Arguellos were citizens of California and that they WERE NOT.  It wasn't a fight they were likely to win as California by this time was a US State.


Cañada de Raymundo
Once the Supreme Court made its decision most of the defendants left their lands, but not all. Lawrence O'Neill was not eager to go. Marshall William Rabe tried to serve the eviction notice but O'Neill was not there.  He left a message that O'Neill should show up in Redwood City and yield possession of the land.  That didn't happen and Rabe went back again.  There was one mention of the fact that O'Neill might have been trying to lease the land from the Argüellos.  As the file ends, that had not been resolved. On 29 Jun 1860 Lawrence Oneil (sic), farmer,  was living in Woodside, twp 3.  He is 30 years old, born in Ireland and has personal property worth $2000 but no real estate.(1)  In 1870, having aged only 5 years, he is living with the Michael Byrnes family in Belmont.(2)

This case did not start in 1860, in fact the US Northern Court decision was the result of an appeal of an 1858 decision of the US Circuit Court.(3)  But that was also not the beginning.  We need to look back nearly twenty years for the first decision in the dispute. In 1841  Francisco Guerrero of Rancho Corral de Tierra, and Alcade of Yerba Buena, was brought in to settle a dispute over the boundaries of the two Ranchos. He found for the Argüellos, but that did not stop Coppinger from selling pieces of the disputed land over the next few years.

Neither did the case stop in 1860.  Greer et al. appealed the US Northern District Court decision to the Supreme court.  The decision of the Supreme court for the Argüellos was reported in the Sacramento Bee article in 1864.

-----------------------
(1) 1860 U.S. census, population schedule. NARA microfilm publication M653, Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration,  Roll 65 p 79 Township 3, San Mateo, California 
(2) 1870 U.S. census, population schedules. NARA microfilm publication M593 Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, Roll 87 p. 372B, Township 3, San Mateo California
(3)  Daily Alta California, Volume 10, Number 302, 3 November 1858 

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

NARA: Federal Court Records - 2

An overview of records located at NARA San Bruno - Part 2

By Martha Wallace

1)     Original Jurisdiction of the Courts – what kinds of cases did they hear?

a)  Original Jurisdiction of Circuit Court
Federal circuit courts were established to serve as trial courts for federal criminal cases, patent & copyright cases, revenue causes, suits between citizens of different states, between citizens and aliens, and civil suits initiated by the US. They had appellate jurisdiction over large admiralty cases and appeals from the district courts.

b)  Original Jurisdiction of District Courts
District courts were established as trial courts for issues arising in the district involving admiralty and maritime cases, minor civil and criminal cases, and cases at common law. A clerk, a district attorney, and a marshal were appointed to assist the judge.

2)     What you will find in the files?

a)   Soot – In a time when the best indoor lighting was provided by gaslights, the soot from the burning gas covered everything. You will find it in the nooks, crannies and folds of the documents. Wash your hands often! Handwritten documents – the handwriting of the clerks, the defendants, the lawyers, and the judge is a delight to read – or decipher! If you can’t figure something out, look at other documents in the file to find the same letters, words, or names, and hope that will help you make a determination.  


b)  Case files containing bonds, information, libel of information, complaints, costs (of clerks, witnesses, informants, marshals, more), notice of trial, affidavits, petitions, orders, claims, monitions, reports of appraisers, answers of claimants/defendants, praecipe, dismissal, subpoenas, venire, demurrers, customs officers, tax collectors (Collector of Internal Revenue), informants, decrees, venditioni exponas, complaints, stipulations, notes of testimony (written by Judge Ogden Hoffman), condemnation & forfeitures, sureties, duties (See http://thelawdictionary.org for more).



c)   Docket book – This large book has entries for each case showing the dates that actions were taken, a summary of proceedings, including a brief abstract of motions and orders, a record of the fees collected, and a statement of the disposition of the case. This can be cross-checked with the case files to learn more about the chronology of the case.



d)   What’s in the index/spread sheet/database columns 



  • Box number – the files are stored in numbered acid-free document boxes.


  • Docket Book – the number of the docket book; the page in the docket book if available.


  • Case # - the cases were numbered sequentially.


  • Plaintiffs – who filed the suit, usually the United States.


  • Defendants – who or what was being taken to court – in many cases it’s a list of items confiscated by Internal Revenue or Customs.


  • Witnesses and other parties – names mentioned in the case files such as witnesses, claimants, bondsmen, investigators.


  • Date of Offense


  • Date Filed


  • Location – cities and counties in northern California, with occasional southern California and other west coast locations.


  • Subject – Type of case (information, libel, complaint) and nature of the offense.


  • Attorneys – the US District Attorney and defendant’s attorney (if noted).


  • Disposition – who won – or was the case dismissed?

  • 3)   What you will not find


    a)  Transcripts – Word for word transcripts were not a part of court documents at this time. The best document to learn the reason for the case is the complaint/information of the original filing. If there are judge’s notes or notes of testimony, you will learn a little more. If the case was reported in the newspapers, you will find more specific details there.

    b)  Not found – In some instances the document file was not found in the box, but there is an entry in the docket book. The information entered in the database is what could be gleaned from the docket entries.

    4)   How to request the files   If you find that an ancestor was involved in one of the cases, contact NARA to visit and see the whole file.  NARA Contact Page