The idea of formally establishing Berkeley's political independence from
Oakland was first explored in 1874 at the zenith of the BLTIA effort, when
Henry Durant called a meeting held at the newly constructed home of
Francis Shattuck.
Those in attendance were:
- F. K. Shattuck,
- Judge John Dwinelle,
- Chas. Dwinelle
- Prof. Rising
- A.B. Dixon
- John Kelsey
- J.D. Colby,
- Peter Mathews
- E.D. Harmon
- John Kearney
- James Edgar
- H.E. Carleton,
- Arthur Edgar
- H.W. Carpentier
- Capt. Jacobs
- James McGee
- Peter McGee
- M. Ashby
- J. T. Fowler
- and Messrs. Townsend, Morse, Boleta, and Higgins.
Two plans were discussed, along with the third alternative of no
plan at all. The first was to incorporate as an independent town. The
second was to join with the Oakland interests which sought support for an
incorporated County of Oakland, the plan that was submitted by Horace
Carpentier. At that time, Carpentier was still in the midst of
establishing north county dominance by pursuing the removal of the county
seat to Oakland. His (temporary) inability to accomplish this resulted in
a plan to politically disassociate himself (and his town) from the
remainder of the county. The Durant meeting concluded with insufficient
support for any plan other than leaving things as they were. In 1875 the
county seat was finally located in Oakland, taking some of the pressure
from Carpentier's Oakland County plan. Following this meeting, Henry was
"kicked upstairs" to the mayoral seat, effectively removing him from any
further local mischief. Henry favored Berkeley’s independence from
Oakland, and his independence from Carpentier.
Meanwhile, in Oakland other plans were in process. Corresponding with
Barker's efforts in Berkeley was the formation of the Merchant's Exchange
in Oakland. While the aims and objectives of this organization were broad,
it was evident that the first order of business was to stifle any attempts
at local government within the northern end of Oakland Township. This was
an issue that would sooner or later be raised not only by Berkeley, but by
Albany, Emeryville, Piedmont, and Temescal as well. With varying degrees
of success.
Berkeley at the time was attempting to garner local support and funds to
erect a school house. In conjunction with this effort, in October of 1876
immediately following the arrival of the railroad, Berkeley citizens led
by insurance man George Dornin (who was, incidently, an associate of
Horace Carpentier since 1849 and the brother-in-law of the equally
outrageous Oakland attorney John Felton) petitioned for local election
precincts that would be defined by the Temescal school district, the
Peralta school district, and the Ocean View & Bay school district. The
response by the County Board of Supervisors was to defer decision. Were
these precincts to be granted, they would have defined Berkeley either as
the area north of Dwight Way, or the area north of Temescal creek. An
ambiguity which will have weighty consequences in the months just ahead.
While this effort failed, the very act of petitioning constituted an
unmistakable threat to the men of the Merchant's Exchange, who had their
own plans for this portion of the county. The local response to the
petition’s failure was an escalation in effort that was spearheaded by the
publication of the Advocate. This newspaper, effectively the voice of
Barker, Dornin, and those who they would represent, explicitly represented
the position that the incorporation of Berkeley as a singular political
entity was nothing short of a good idea. Incorporation, it was argued,
would allow the local government to issue bonds and thereby realize those
necessary improvements that would not, in the foreseeable future, be
forthcoming from the County. These improvements would attract settlement,
and settlement was good for business. The Advocate made it clear that for
the present, all the improvements that had been made were the result of
individual efforts. And this could not be expected to continue. Finally, a
local government would have the routine power to tax its residents,
thereby making possible the needed educational facility.
The Oakland Merchant’s Exchange
The Oakland Merchant's Exchange was a reorganization of the preexisting
Real Estate and Merchant's Exchange, a renewal which beefed up their
operation in order to more effectively regulate real estate practice (and
prices), to standardize fees, to prevent outlaw selling, to prevent
multiple fees to seller or buyer, to stabilize value, and to effect a
combined City and County government. These were their initially stated
goals. Their principled efforts were clearly aimed at the highly
competitive real estate activities which were in process in and around the
University and in the vicinity of the recently installed railroad
terminus. With Barker, Dornin and their affiliates becoming altogether too
comfortable with a virtual franchise on much of the desirable properties
in Berkeley, the Oakland real estate barons were confronting what was for
them a disagreeable disadvantage. The "Exchange" was designed to remedy
this situation as well as to interrupt any new efforts at Berkeley's
incorporation.
The one man most outspoken among his "Exchange" colleagues with respect to
the "county plan" was Francis Shattuck. When it was suggested that
representatives from other parts of the county be asked to participate in
this endeavor, Shattuck promised to represent the Berkeley interests; from
the other parts of the county the invitations were met with refusal if
they were not entirely ignored. The Merchant's Exchange, in spite of their
socially correct political avowals, transparently represented only the
interests of the Merchant's Exchange
The Berkeley Land and Building Company
Thus the issues and the principals were given. From mid 1877 on, the
efforts towards Berkeley's political autonomy was overt and strenuous. In
August of 1877 James Barker and his associates, William Heywood, George
Dornin, Alfred Bartlett and Charles Clarke, filed for the incorporation of
the Berkeley Land & Building Co. This organization was designed to finance
and lead the way in the effort toward the incorporation of Berkeley as a
civic entity. The effort was capitalized at $100,000.00 with 1000 shares
being offered. With these funds the "local interests" were able to entice
the participation of Judge Waldo York, a bright and articulate jurist
whose Berkeley career was, from the outset, directed toward its political
independence. However, while these early efforts were impressive, they
involved the participation of no more than a handful of the local
citizens. The movement toward Incorporation was not an especially high
priority issue with the scant populace within Berkeley.
In October of 1877, as tensions began to mount, the Advocate reported a
rumor in the "Oakland paper" to the effect that the Central Pacific
Railroad was about to establish its main terminal at the Berkeley
waterfront. The article went on to say that this unquestionably was a
wonderful idea, a much better plan than the previous one of establishing
it at the Oakland waterfront. Oakland's response was one of outrage and a
vow to fight for what was rightfully theirs. With this move the contention
finally turned nasty. Oakland's somewhat hysterical position was that the
original deal with the Railroad included their donation of land and their
right to have the terminus. Berkeley, regarded as constituting no more
than a handful of ambitious businessmen with the probable backing of the
railroad interests, was henceforth identified as a competitor. It remains
uncertain as to how the rumor was started, and by whom. However, it would
not be unlike the railroad, which always sought a fiscal advantage, to
divide and conquer, anticipating a favorable business climate with
whomever emerged the victor.
Temescal
A second issue which quickly emerged to muddy what seemed the simpler issues was that of Temescal, the unincorporated community which lay just north of the Oakland City limits, and immediately south of what we now know as Berkeley. This area included homes of some of Oakland's most well-to-do families, one of the largest fruit packing industries on the west coast, as well as an indecent plethora of taverns. Oakland at that time had a prohibitive tax on liquor licenses, and Berkeley had a limit on alcohol sales set by the State, having to do with the tavern’s proximity to the campus. Most folks who wanted to drink went to Temescal or "Ocean View". The rumor that circulated read that Berkeley was intending to include the Temescal area within its corporate limits. There were, it was said, some Temescal residents who favored this plan, and some, a more numerous contingent, who objected. Some of those who did object were members of the Merchant's Exchange, living in the very exclusive foothill section of this unincorporated portion of the county. Because the issue was inflammatory, Berkeley cried "foul", and insisted (in spite of the recent "districting" ambiguities) that their interest in territory never went further south than Russell Street. But this issue was raised with the purpose of defeating the Berkeley effort, and for this reason the concern about Temescal would not be that easily settled.
Workingman’s Party
Complicating this matter even further, was the political climate
engendered by the increasing local interest in the incendiary and
flagrantly racist Workingman's Party. Headquartered in San Francisco, the
thrust of this movement was to prevent Chinese workers from competing with
the local white work force. This movement of vicious, rampant unionism,
led by the ambitious but politically maladroit Dennis Kearney, was aimed
primarily at getting rid of the Chinese, but was aimed as well at the
disenfranchisement of the capitalists who made life hard for the working
man. There was considerable sentiment in favor of this movement,
especially among the "blue collar" workers in the area. In the east bay,
there was a concentration of blue collars in Ocean View, as well as in
Temescal. Those who did not favor Berkeley's incorporation knew that the
mobilization of this "workman's" constituency could effectively block any
effort that could be identified as instigated by capital interests.
Accordingly, the leaders of the move toward incorporation were depicted,
by the Merchant’s Exchange, but not inaccurately, as being of the
capitalistic persuasion. A politically expedient example of the pot
calling the kettle black.
Within a very short time the sides were drawn, the issues were suitably
muddied, and the tempers boosted. On the one side was Barker and his
associates who represented the railroad's interests, and who favored
incorporation. On the other side were the Oakland capitalists, represented
by the Merchant's Exchange. It would seem that the issues surrounding
Temescal represented a "red herring" in this political fight, but, if so,
an effective red herring.
The Second Meeting
With the sides already drawn, in December of 1877 a second meeting was
called by Barker for the purpose of discussing the idea incorporation. The
meeting was attended by Dornin, A.C.R. Shaw, Kellogg, Antisell, Penwell
and several others whose names were not recorded. Among this group there
was only partial agreement to proceed with the concept. The arguments in
favor of incorporation were published in the Advocate, clearly and
convincingly written by Waldo York. These pieces represented a high level
of verbal fluency, cogent argument, and intelligent debate. There were two
members of the community who publically dissented. The first was more than
likely Peter Mathews, however the author of those remarks did not care to
disclose his identity. The second was A.C.R. Shaw.
While the Advocate saw fit to publish Shaw's arguments against
incorporation side by side with those of Waldo York, Shaw's were usually
disparaged and offered has a singular, lonely view, one that was most
certainly not to be taken seriously, nor as representative of the
authentic community attitude. It is of interest that the first such
article by Shaw was so poorly composed, articulated, or spelled as to make
it appear the product of an illiterate fool. However, when this piece
was contrasted with his subsequent writings, it is clear that the paper
had either published a draft or had otherwise altered his efforts, a
malicious attempt to sabotage his effectiveness.
Shaw foresaw trouble. He argued that with a small population divided
between several discrete community "centers" and which had, in reality,
few common problems, the use of any taxation funds collected would be
virtually impossible to fairly, or efficiently allocate. He did not
believe that so small and diverse a community could support a government
structure along with the many civic improvements that were being promised,
and he strongly suggested that the community wait until it itself had more
fully developed before it cut itself off from the county funds that it
would continue to receive as an unincorporated entity. Nor was Shaw alone
in his anti-incorporation position; there were foes to the incorporative
efforts both within and without the proposed limits of Berkeley, a reality
which definitely worried its adherents.
The “Memorium”
In January of 1878, in the very midst of the rainy season that
traditionally reduced Berkeley’s dirt roads to impassable quagmires,
Barker, Bartlett, Hann, Antisell, and Carnall (the men who represented the
main thrust towards incorporation) appeared before the County Board of
Supervisors. They were there to request that the Board abandon an existing
plan for the much needed grading of a portion of Shattuck Avenue; at least
until it was determined whether or not the efforts at incorporation would
be successful. This tactic was unquestionably an attempt to convince the
local citizenry of the dire need for a local treasury, and the operation
of local services, but also to draw attention to the fact that they could
not depend upon the County for what was required.
Meanwhile, in a period when the Advocate could virtually talk of nothing
else, the Oakland papers remained silent on any of the activities exerted
toward Berkeley's incorporation.
It is difficult to know for certain how much support lay behind Shaw.
However, to prove the extent of his support, it was Barker's plan to draw
up a "Memorium", which was a kind of petition. The Memorium would bear
testimony of the numbers and strength that lie behind the move to
incorporate. The document bearing these endorsements was then offered to
the Berkeley populace for its endorsement.
The Memorium appeared in the Advocate on the Second of February, 1878.
While Barker claimed that some 90% of the local population was in favor of
incorporation, they were able to garner a total of 293 signatures out of
an estimated population of 1500 people. Considering the total to included
women and children, neither of whom had the voting franchise (there were
403 youngsters attending the various Berkeley schools in 1878, there would
be 515 in 1879), and still a slight preponderance of men in this frontier
community, this number scarcely represented 90% of the voting population.
Nonetheless, this document was presented as reflecting the overwhelming
support that favored the efforts toward incorporation.
The signatures of those residents with known connections to the railroad
interests were conspicuously present (for example: Barker, Dornin, Palmer,
Thomas, Bailey, Bartlett, and Rammelsburg). However, it is worth noting
that many prominent residents did not sign, presumably because they did
not support this plan. Among those whose signatures did not appears were
the following: Shattuck, Hillegass, Stewart, Clapp, Dunn, Byrne, Peralta,
James Jacobs, William Bowen, Michael Higgins, Everding, Willey, Ashby,
Mason, Beaver, Noel, Batchelder, Hiram T. Graves, McGee, Ysunza, Gilman,
Thomas Eyre, C.H. Richards, Boswell, Lingard, Fleming, Guenette, and
Schnelle, nor were any of the various Schmidts, Brennans, Rooneys, and
Tierneys among the signatories. A few of these people may have been
illegible because they had legal addresses outside of the Berkeley area,
however that technicality did not prevent some of the endorsements which
were obtained.
Of the signers, forty were identified as skilled workers, forty eight
others were said to be involved in the construction trade, there were
eleven office workers, twenty one laborers, twenty seven functioning in
some aspect of the transportation industry, twenty were teachers, there
were thirty four merchants, thirteen were farmers, and twelve identified
themselves as being in the real estate business. Certainly a respectable
distribution of interests.
Two days following this well publicized and highly touted demonstration of
support, the original document was taken to Sacramento by Barker and
Dornin and introduced as the basis for Berkeley's bid for State
recognition as an incorporated entity. On February 6, 1878 Assembly Bill
#309 was introduced and easily passed a month later. However, it barely
passed in the Senate on the 27th of March, 1878, and there were several
complicating factors in the Senates treatment of this bill.
The Bill to Incorporate
In the first place, the bill as written was offensive to the Alameda
County Board of Supervisors. Their displeasure was based upon a
stipulation to the effect that the county would be responsible for half
the costs of all street improvements, including sewers, that adjoin the
town limits. Figuring this to be a costly line item over which they would
have no real control, they sent representatives to Sacramento to either
alter or defeat the bill. The result was that the offending clause was
omitted. The issue of the town limits was another matter. The intent was
to set the southern boundary at Russell Street, however with a desperate
need to reconcile all differences, in an effort to garner any and all
support, a compromise was effected whereby the southern limit was set at a
line which fell a few feet south of Dwight Way. This was a strange and
apparently arbitrary place to draw the line, conforming as it did with no
stable, identifiable, or sensible land mark. The line is of some
speculative interest in that one of Barker's properties, the Steel Tract,
extended no less than 500 feet south of Dwight Way. The original southern
boundary, it seems, was set to just accommodate the holdings of Mr Barker.
At the other end of town, it became necessary to exclude all territory
north of (approximately) Eunice Street, that being the land owned in large
measure by Horace Carpentier. Carpentier was not in favor of
incorporation, and as an involved party he had the power to summarily
defeat the effort. Outside the town limits he was no longer an involved
party. For the same reason, the excluded northern sector also included the
property of a William Shaw, most assuredly a relative. This now left the
town of Berkeley a considerably smaller area, and a somewhat reduced
constituency, than had originally been intended.
Finally, as the vote was going against them, the proponents of this effort
made their final compromise. At the insistence of their adversaries, they
omitted that portion of the bill which would have allowed the town to
incur debt. That would mean that here could be no sale of bonds as a means
to finance needed improvements. The government and all necessary
improvements would be limited to a hopefully adequate tax base, garnered
from a small and divided population. With this virtually fatal concession,
the opposition rested. Clearly, without the power to generate vital funds,
the new political entity could not survive.
But who was this opposition. Unquestionably incorporation was strongly
opposed by the Oakland Merchants Exchange. Zachary ("Zack") Montgomery, a
prominent Oakland attorney, a large landholder in the Temescal area, and
member of the "Exchange" was the leading lobbyist in the struggle to
prevent the bid for incorporation. (Berkeley's lobbyist, of course, was
the equally skilled Waldo York.) It is suspected that Horace Carpentier,
who still had some political advantage, was in league with the Oakland
real estate interests. If so, Carpentier had taken a position in
opposition to the railroad with which he was still visibly identified, and
which at least gave the appearance of favoring Berkeley's independence
from Oakland. What is remarkable, given the political strength of the
railroad, is that the vote came so close to being contrary to their
wishes. What is even more remarkable is the sheer magnitude of contention
exercised over this small parcel of land. Nowhere in the published
accounts of these proceedings is there a single clue as to the true nature
of the stakes for which these mighty opponents did battle.
It can be guessed that involved in the dispute was the apparent plan to
make Berkeley the State Capitol. However in spite of the several attempts
(the first being in 1859) to make it so, it had not come to pass. That the
railroad had an already vested interest in this land does not account for
the zeal with which the capital interests of Oakland competed for its
proprietorship. But whatever the truth of the matter, and whether it was
for better or worse, Berkeley had survived its first crucial test. The new
town had established itself as a politically autonomous community. With
its new status work began in earnest to organize its first government. As
might well have been expected, the rivalry between the three factions did
not end with the granting of Berkeley's franchise.
Berkeley’s First Election
Berkeley's first civil election took place on May 13th, 1878. There were two groups offering candidates, with several candidates appearing on both slates. The Workingman's Party, popular in its day and dedicated to preventing capital from assuming unwanted power, was pitted against the Citizens Party, which for the most part, and quite blatantly, represented the interests of the local capitalists. The vast majority of the candidates offered by the Citizens Party were the same people who had signed the Memorium. Ironically enough, the results of this election reflected a clean sweep for the Workingman's Party. Of those elected, less than half had signed the Memorium. Of those that did lend their support, two were University Professors who were elected to the new school board (and who had run on both tickets), and the majority of the remainder were West Berkeley residents, well known and well liked in spite of their earlier position regarding incorporation. Thus, it would seem that of those who successfully sought public office, most of them did not favor incorporation in the first place. The will of the people is not hard to discern. Their object now was to prevent local rule by capital interests. Anyone who had been in any way connected with the Berkeley Land and Town Improvement Association was roundly defeated.
Berkeley’s Subsequent Elections
The second election, held one year later, was dominated by the newly
established People's Party which ran "middle-of-the-road" candidates who
were essentially unopposed. The candidates that were offered were, for the
most part, a careful selection of well-liked citizens, with a mild
scattering of established but thought-to-be politically benign
capitalists. George Dornin, for example, was elected to the School Board.
I.M. Wentworth, president of the Wentworth Boot and Shoe Company, West
Berkeley's newest industry (occupying the vacated premises of the Cornell
Watch Company) which was recognized as being a major employer in the area,
was elected to be a member of the Board of Trustees. The majority of slate
members were incumbents to the positions which they sought. Overall, it
was a boring election which effectively endorsed the status quo.
By the third year, there was a clear shift to applicants who were aspiring
toward political power. With more than a smattering of lawyers and
merchants in the running, the majority of those elected represented the
East Berkeley interests.
By the fourth year the old guard was even more strongly represented, and
with the election of August Rammelsburg as assessor, even the memory of
the BLTIA had faded sufficiently to permit forgiveness.
In 1884, the citizens of Berkeley elected Francis Shattuck to its Board of
Trustees. Shattuck’s interests still lay with the Merchants Exchange. The
remaining trustees wasted no time in establishing him as their president.
Shattuck's tenure in this office was short. Whatever ill feelings may have
yet prevailed, having the former Chair of the County Board of Supervisors
active in local government gave to most a sense of pride.
Waldo York
Waldo York had been enlisted by Barker and his associates in an effort to
bring some competitive talent into their campaign for incorporation. It
was York who lobbied and argued Berkeley's case in Sacramento. Following
this successful campaign, York decided to settle in Berkeley. On the other
hand, York had also argued against the wisdom or utility of extending the
Central Pacific Berkeley terminus to Vine Street. This position produced
an unexpected display of partisan animosity from both Berryman and
Antisell. Their response clearly revealed a distaste for the Barker
contingent. It is here that the issue of local sympathies becomes
increasingly opaque, in as much as both Barker and Berryman sided with
Barker in favor of incorporation, and both were rather substantially
identified with the interest of the railroad. The issue seemed to revolve
around in which part of Berkeley the railroad “terminus” would be. Those
who had invested in the commercial future at Center Street favored that
site, those who had invested in the commercial future of the Vine Street
site, favored extension. A third faction, it is well to note, was in
support of a focus of activity at Dwight Way Station. And a fourth group
sought a railroad extension up “Telegraph” to Allston Street. Finally
there was West Berkeley people who shared sentiments with none of the
above.
On the occas
ion of the first town meeting, the third ordinance passed
established Wal do York as the Town Attorney at a salary of $25.00 per
month. York held this position with much respect (according to the
Advocate), as he concomitantly maintained his legal practice in San
Francisco, occupying offices in the Montgomery Block. His residence was at
the fashionable corner of Vine and Spruce. While a political antagonist to
Mr Antisell, he found it suitable to establish his abode within the
latter's Villa Tract. Berkeley at the time had a York Street, however this
street has long since vanished. Waldo York was president of the Peoples
Party and declared himself at that time to be interested only in working
toward a nonpartisan and harmonious Berkeley. He was at the same time
president of the Berkeley Central Republican Committee, a group of highly
partisan conservative politicians who directed their efforts toward State
and National Politics.
After serving the Berkeley Board of Trustees for two years, Waldo York
resigned his position to devote his full time to his practice and his
evolving political life. He was replaced as Town Attorney by W.H. Chapman,
a young man who had only recently completed law school, and who had
previously been a real estate partner of Nathan Carnall. Carnall, elected
to the post of town assessor in 1880 was the son of James Carnall who had
been a business and political associate of Barker (and was amongst those
strongly advocating incorporation) and had been elected Justice of the
Peace in Berkeley's first election. James Carnall shot himself in the head
while aboard the Berkeley-San Francisco Ferry in October of 1878.
Soon after Chapman's installation as the town's legal authority, he
offered an opinion, within the context of a fiercely debated decision
concerning the location of the proposed town hall, regarding what he
believed to be an illegal purchase by the Town Trustees. In this he noted
that his opinion was in accord with that of Waldo York. A week later York
responded to the effect that he did not agree with young Chapman.
Disregarding their newly appointed legal mentor, the Trustees turned once
again, now on an informal, basis to Waldo York. In the reporting of
matters of legal uncertainty, reference was typically made to the voiced
opinion of the "ex-town attorney". York was hardly reticent in expressing
his opinion regarding Chapman, who he regarded as being not only less than
competent but rather lazy as well. Needless to say, Chapman's position was
severely compromised and he remained a "lame duck" occupant of that
position. The following year, Chapman and his law partner McKinstry (who
was at that time the President of the town's Trustees) relocated their
practice to San Francisco. While McKinstry would not himself take any
action that would be contrary to the best interest of his partner, the
position of Town Attorney was none the less declared effectively vacated.
Good feelings did not prevail and McKinstry, who then began missing
meetings, eventually and without further word, disappeared from view. His
absence at Trustee meetings was at first explained and excused, but when
he made no effort to account for his odd behavior it was fairly well
agreed that this position had likewise been vacated. In 1883, Mrs
McKinstry and her daughters left for her home town of Mobile, Alabama and
filed for divorce. Two months later it is revealed that the ex-president
of the Board of Trustees had failed to make good on his debts to local
merchants, and lost a suit filed by grocer Huston for $260.43 to
compensate for groceries delivered on credit. In those days, this was
considered a very sizable sum.
In 1883 Waldo York, the former town attorney was both admitted to practice
in the U.S. District Court and was again made town attorney, still
demanding his original salary of $25.00 per month. Again the tenure was
brief and York soon moved on to live for awhile in San Luis Obisbo and
then, in 1889, to Los Angeles. At that juncture, Edward C. Robinson was
appointed town attorney.
Edward Robinson
Between 1873 to 1878 Robinson had worked as bookkeeper, collector and foreman in the coal business of Felix Chappellet and Co, and tried his hand at mining after leaving that employ. In 1880 he returned to study law and was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in 1882. In 1885 he was appointed attorney to Alameda County's Public Administrator Louis Gotshall (who had begun his local career as a Berkeley merchant, and was then a successful developer of domestic and commercial properties) and remained with that position to 1887. At first accepting the Berkeley position at a rate of $40.00 per month, he soon allowed as to how this was insufficient compensation. Since it was illegal to raise the salary of a public office while that position was occupied, Robinson resigned for a 24 hour period, long enough for the trustees to raise the salary to $75.00 per month, at which time he was rehired. While this outrage was exposed by at least one citizen writing within the pages of the Advocate, Robinson remained secure in his office.
The Continuing Vicissitudes of
James Barker
Following the town's incorporation, Barker several times sought election
to public office and failed with each attempt. While successful as a
businessman, he was neither popular nor apparently trusted with the public
interest. Reasonably, he turned his attention to the formation of
partnerships in real estate, developing several tracts of land throughout
Berkeley. Included was the Golden Gate Tract (which became the Golden Gate
Homestead Association) which he bought in March of 1887. This property was
located on the west side of upper Shattuck Avenue, immediately south of
Graves and Taylor, between Virginia and Cedar. With this acquistion,
Barker had begun to hedge his bets by expanding his involvement to the
North Berkeley real estate scene. In April of 1889 Warren G. Sanborn
bought from Barker all the frontage along Shattuck from Virginia to
Lincoln, opened Lincoln Street, and buried the creek.
Besides real estate, Barker had been no less involved in the development
of his insurance business, his hardware business, and his plumbing
business. Originally a partner of George Dornin, who was then a vice
president of the Fireman's Fund, he associated himself over the years with
other agents, and becme a partner of F.W. Beardslee in 1880. In that same
year he acquired virtually all of the College Tract, land previously owned
by the Berkeley Real Estate Union. This tract extended from Shattuck
Avenue to Bonita, University to Berkeley Way. In September of 1886, Barker
declared his new partnership, which would include both real estate and
insurance, with a J.J. McLenathen.
In May of 1887 it was announced that Barker would be going to Chicago, on
business, and would remain there for a month's stay. In June the Herald
(Berkeley's second local newspaper) proclaimed that his mission was not to
pursue the interests of the Homestead Loan Association. This was an answer
to a question that had not been publically posed, and it remains unclear
as to why it was important to so carefully deny this supposition. The
Homestead Loan Association of Berkeley was incorporated in early 1886 as a
Savings and Loan. As there was no bank in Berkeley, it often functioned as
a bank. There is no evidence that Barker was an officer in this
Association.
Later that same month Barker announced that because he had accepted an
important position in Chicago, he would be leaving Berkeley and selling
his various business interests. Whatever his plans, in June of 1887 he
abandoned Berkeley and, as we were led to believe, assumed the position of
president and business manager of the Chicago Supply Company. The Chicago
Supply Company was a firm whose main business was the representation of
three brass manufacturers: The Lorain Brass Co of Cleveland, the Hayden Co
of Haydenville Mass, and the Peck Bros of New York. Immediately upon his
departure, McLenathen established a new business alliance with Louis
Gottshall.
In July of 1887 Barker wrote to say that he was "engaged in a large
business", that he would remain in Chicago for a few years before
returning to Berkeley where he expected to enjoy his retirement, and that
he encouraged the people of Berkeley to take care of their streets and to
install the electric lights.
One month later Barker returned to Berkeley to take care of business and
to sell his Berkeley hardware interests. This was accomplished by a sale
to J.W. Savage who had recently arrived in Berkeley from Rahway, New
Jersey. The business occupied the corner of Shattuck Ave and Dwight Way.
With this accomplished, he spent the remainder of his time organizing the
efforts directed toward the proposed electric street lighting (which
included the forming of the Berkeley Electric Light Company), renting his
Dwight Way home to a family from Iowa named Kierulff, and then once again
removing himself to Chicago. While it would appear that he had by December
of that year in fact vacated his Berkeley responsibilities, his ads for
insurance sales and real estate opportunities continued to run, quite
conspicuously, in both the Advocate and the Berkeley Herald.
In April of 1888, scarcely six months later, it was announced that Barker
would be abandoning his Chicago job and returning to Berkeley; he was due
to arrive on the First of May. The only reason given was that he did not
like the Chicago weather. By early May he had in fact returned, and he
was immediately elected to a directorship of the Electric Light Company.
For a short while he was staying at the Brunswich House in Oakland, his
Berkeley residence still occupied by the Kierulff's. The Kierulffs were
encouraged to move into the then unoccupied Shattuck house, and by October
the Barkers were reestablished in their Dwight Way digs. Savage was
directed to move his hardware business (he moved it one door north), and
on December 1st Barker reopened his plumbing business, the importing of
iron pipe and plumber's supplies, in Oakland; his Shattuck Avenue location
being a local outlet for these materials. In July of 1889, J. W. Savage
bought from Mr. Hanifin a lot next to Kellogg School on Center Street for
$1450, and moved his hardware store to a more propitious location.
Barker's sojourn to Chicago is most curious. Considering the complexity of
his involvement in Berkeley, the pivotal role he played with respect to
the railroad and the insurance industry, not to mention his success in the
development of property, the plan to relocate is provocative and the
reasons given are strongly suspect. It would seem to be exceedingly
unlikely that at age 46 he would impetuously abandon all that he had
accomplished in this locale to begin anew in an unfamiliar community that
is known for its dreadful weather, simply with the promise of another well
paying position. His plan to relocate seemed precipitous, and was
furthermore conducted in an atmosphere of rumor, speculation, and general
uncertainty. All this, together with the fact that this typically prudent
man seemingly turned his back on what had been (from at least one
perspective) an admirable community role, and to just as quickly reverse
the process, leaves us with more questions than it does explanations.
At this point some speculation is in order. It would not be unlikely that
the relocation had been ordered by those in authority, rather than elected
on the part of the principle. At the particular time this move was
effected, Barker seemed to be hovering somewhere between potentially
incompatible primary loyalties: self interest pursued by an affiliation
with the Oakland power brokers, responsibilities to the Central Pacific
Railroad, and a career with the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. His
determination to enhance his own fortune through a growing independence
from his corporate masters, may have emerged at a time when the power
equation did not necessarily favor his personal preference for an
independent practice. In short, to those who were in a position of
control, James Barker may have seemed to have grown too big for his own
britches.
For reasons such as these it could be speculated that Barker was drawn
away from Berkeley, in the midst of his bid for singular proprietorship,
with an offer that he simply could not refuse. The uncomfortable vagueness
which surrounded his new position lends some support in this direction.
But if this appears to account for his removal, how might we account for
his premature, virtually unexplained, and no less precipitous return? The
answer may be discovered within another portion of this tale, one which
has yet to be told; the development of Berkeley's public utilities. For
the moment we shall put the question aside, content only in the knowledge
that contained therein is a lingering mystery, one that remains
approachable only through speculation, but which deserves more than
Barker’s seemingly capricious, benign, and superficial report.
After his return, Barker was thrust immediately back into his routine
commercial activities, as well as into his role in the ongoing quest to
improve the community. While he never again was able to occupy the
singular leadership position he had previously enjoyed, nor for that
matter would any man in Berkeley ever again enjoy such a calling, Barker
managed to do well. In 1896 the lumber firm of Barker and Hunter built 150
residences. In 1900 Barker and his old partner, R.W. McKinney
reincorporated and proceeded to build a three story commercial and
residential building on the corner of Shattuck and Dwight. The Barker
Building, completed in 1905, cost $325,000. He dissolved that partnership
a year later, devoting himself entirely to his real estate ventures and
the responsibilities of the directorship of the local banking institutions
which he had helped to create.
In 1904, Barker was a principal in the organization of the 1st National
Bank of Berkeley, along with Shattuck, Naylor and others. That same year,
with A.W. Naylor, he opened the South Berkeley Bank, , at the intersection
of Adeline and Alcatraz, which later became a branch of the Mercantile
Trust Company of California.
The Barker family, four generations later, continue to reside in and near
Berkeley.