the struggle for the exclusion of the Chinese, for the control of hydraulic mining, irrigation, and the advancement by state-aid of the fruit interests; the last three of which have already been referred to above. Labour conditions were peculiar in the decade following 1870. Mining, war times and the building of the Central Pacific had up to then inflated prices and prosperity. Then there came a slump; probably the truth was rather that money was becoming less unnaturally abundant than that there was any over-supply of labour. The turning off of some 15,000 Chinese (principally in 1869–1870) from the Central Pacific lines who flocked to San Francisco, augmented the discontent of incompetents, of disappointed late immigrants, and the reaction from flush times. Labour unions became strong and demonstrative. In 1877–1878 Denis Kearney (1847–1907), an Irish drayman and demagogue of considerable force and daring, headed the discontented. This is called the “sand-lots agitation” from the favourite meeting-place (in San Francisco) of the agitators.
The outcome of these years was the Constitution of 1879, already described, and the exclusion of Chinese by national law. In 1879 California voted against further immigration of Chinese by 154,638 to 883. Congress re-enacted exclusion legislation in 1902. All authorities agree that the Chinese in early years were often abused in the mining country and their rights most unjustly neglected by the law and its officers. Men among the most respected in California (Joaquin Miller, H. H. Bancroft and others) have said most in praise and defence of the Chinaman. From railroad making to cooking he has proved his abilities and trustworthiness. He is found to-day in the mines and fisheries, in various lines of manufacture, in small farming, and in all branches of domestic service. The question of the economic development of the state, and of trade to the Orient, the views of the mercenary labour-contractor and of the philanthropist, the factor of “upper-race” repugnance, the “economic-leech” argument, the “rat-rice-filth-and-opium” argument, have all entered into the problem. Certain it is that though the unprejudiced must admit that exclusion has not been at all an unmixed blessing, yet the consensus of opinion is that a large population, non-citizen and non-assimilable, sending—it is said—most of their earnings to China, living in the main meanly at best, and practically without wives, children or homes, is socially and economically a menace outweighing the undoubted convenience of cheaper (and frequently more trustworthy) menial labour than the other population affords. The exclusion had much to do with making the huge single crop ranches unprofitable and in leading to their replacement by small farms and varied crops. Many of the Chinese now in the state are wealthy. Race feeling against them has become much less marked.
One outcome of early mission history, the “Pious Fund of the Californias,” claimed in 1902 the attention of the Hague Tribunal. (See Arbitration, International, Hague cases section.) In 1906–1907 there was throughout the state a remarkable anti-Japanese agitation, centring in San Francisco (q.v.) and affecting international relations and national politics.
| Governors of California (State)[1] | |||||
| I. Spanish | |||||
| Gasper de Portolá | served | 1767–1770 | |||
| Filipe de Barri | served | 1771–1774 | |||
| Felipe de Neve | served | 1774–1782 | |||
| Pedro Pages | served | 1782–1791 | |||
| Jose Antonio Romeu | served | 1791–1792 | |||
| * | José Joaquin de Arillaga | served | 1792–1794 | ||
| Diego de Borica | served | 1794–1800 | |||
| * | José Joaquin de Arillaga | served | 1800–1804 | ||
| José Joaquin de Arillaga | served | 1804–1814 | |||
| * | José Diario Arguello | served | 1814–1815 | ||
| Pablo Vicente de Sola | served | 1815–1822 | |||
| II. Mexican | |||||
| Pablo Vicente de Sola | served | 1822 | |||
| * | Luis Antonio Arguello | served | 1822–1825 | ||
| José Maria Echeandía | served | 1825–1831 | |||
| Manuel Victoria | served | 1831 | |||
| José Maria Echeandía[2] | served | 1831–1832 | |||
| Pio Pico[3] | served | 1832 | |||
| José Figueroa | served | 1832–1835 | |||
| * | José Castro | served | 1835–1836 | ||
| * | Nicolas Gutierrez | served | 1836 | ||
| Mariano Chico | served | 1836 | |||
| Nicolas Gutierrez | served | 1836 | |||
| Juan Bautista Alvarado[4] | served | 1836–1842 | |||
| Carlos Antonio Carrillo[5] | served | 1837–1838 | |||
| Manuel Micheltorena | served | 1842–1845 | |||
| Pio Pico | served | 1845–1846 | |||
| III. American | |||||
| (a) Military | |||||
| John D. Sloat | appointed | 1846 | |||
| Richard F. Stockton | appointed | 1846–1847 | |||
| Stephen W. Kearny | appointed | 1847 | |||
| R.B. Mason | appointed | 1847–1849 | |||
| Bennett Riley | appointed | 1849 | |||
| (b) State. | |||||
| Peter H. Burnett | 1849–1851 | Democrat | |||
| * | John H. McDougall | 1851–1852 | ” | ||
| John Bigler | 1852–1856 | ” | |||
| John M. Johnson | 1856–1858 | Know Nothing | |||
| John B. Weller | 1858–1860 | Lecompton Democrat | |||
| Milton S. Latham | 1869 | (6 days) | ” | ||
| * | John G. Downey | 1860–1862 | ” | ||
| Leland Stanford | 1862–1863 | Republican | |||
| Frederick F. Low | 1863–1867 | ” | |||
| Henry H. Haight | 1867–1871 | Democrat | |||
| Newton Booth | 1871–1875 | Republican | |||
| * | Romualdo Pacheco | 1875 | ” | ||
| William Irwin | 1875–1880 | Democrat | |||
| George G. Perkins | 1880–1883 | Republican | |||
| George C. Stoneman | 1883–1887 | Democrat | |||
| Washington Bartlett | 1887 | ” | |||
| * | Robert W. Waterman | 1887–1891 | Republican | ||
| Henry H. Markham | 1891–1895 | ” | |||
| James H. Budd | 1895–1899 | Democrat | |||
| Henry T. Gage | 1899–1903 | Republican | |||
| George C. Pardee | 1903–1907 | ” | |||
| James N. Gillett | 1907–1911 | ” | |||
| Hiram W. Johnson | 1911– | ” | |||
The mark * before the name of one of the Spanish governors indicates that he acted only ad interim, and, in the case of governors since 1849, that the officer named was elected as lieutenant-governor and succeeded to the office of governor.
Bibliography.—For list of works on California, see University of California Library Bulletin, No. 9, 1887, “List of Printed Maps of California”; catalogue of state official publications by State Library (Sacramento, 1894). The following may be cited here on different aspects:—
Topography.—J. Muir, Mountains of California (New York, 1894); H. Gannett, “Dictionary of Elevations” (1898), and “River Profiles,” publications of United States Geological Survey; G. W. James, The Wonders of the Colorado Desert (2 vols., Boston, 1906).
Climate, &c.—U.S. Department of Agriculture, California Climate and Crop Service, monthly reports; E. S. Holden, Recorded, Earthquakes in California, Lower California, Oregon, and Washington Territory (California State University, 1887); United States Department Agriculture, Weather Bureau, Bulletins, Alexander G. McAdie, “Climatology of California” (Washington, 1903). There is a great mass of general descriptive literature, especially on Southern California, such as Charles Dudley Warner, Our Italy (New York, 1891); Kate Sanborn, A Truthful Woman in Southern California (New York, 1893); W. Lindley and J. P. Widney, California of the South (New York, 1896); J. W. Hanson, American Italy (Chicago, 1896); T. S. Van Dyke, Southern California (New York, 1886), &c.
Fauna, Flora.—Muir, op. cit.; United States Geological Survey, 19th Annual Report, pt. v., H. Gannett, “Forests of the United States”; idem, 20th Annual Report, pt. v., “United States Forest Reserves”; United States Division of Forestry, Bulletin No. 28, “A Short Account of the Big Trees of California” (1900), No. 38, “The Redwood” (a volume, 1903), also Professional Papers, e.g. No. 8, J. B. Leiberg, “Forest Conditions in the Northern Sierra Nevada” (1902); California Board of Forestry, Reports (1885– );
- ↑ As months and even years often elapsed between the date when early governors were appointed and the beginning of their actual service, the date of commission is disregarded, and the date of service given. Sometimes this is to be regarded as beginning at Monterey, sometimes elsewhere in California, sometimes at Loreto in Lower California. All the Spanish and Mexican governors were appointed by the national government, except in the case of the semi-revolutionary rulers of 1831–1832 and 1836 (Alvarado), whose title rested on revolution, or on local choice under a national statute regarding gubernatorial vacancies.
- ↑ Acting political chief, revolutionary title.
- ↑ Briefly recognized in South.
- ↑ Revolutionary title, 1836–1838.
- ↑ Appointed 1837, never recognized in the North.
