Notes

Notes
43
Bancroft, ibid., VI, 604-11.
44
note 1 above.
45
note 1 above
Nasatir, French Activities..., op. cit., passim.
49
note 1 above
Bancroft, op. cit., VII, 656-57.
50
Joseph Ellison, California and the Nation, 1850-1869 (Berkeley, 1927), pp. 7-16, and 54-63.
Hittell, op. cit., III, 691-96
Bancroft, op. cit., VI, 396- 402, and 529-48.
51
Joseph Ellison, op. cit., chap. V.
Bancroft, op. cit., VII, 474-86.
52
Bancroft, op. cit., VI, 417-18
VII, 637 ff.
53
note 1 above.
54
Moerenhout to Minister, Monterey, Sept. 1, 1849, this Quarterly, XIII (Dec. 1934), 370-75
Nasatir, Inside Story of the Gold Rush, op. cit., pp. 64-69.
55
Mary F. Williams, History of the Committee of Vigilance of 1851 (Berkeley, 1921), pp. 184, 454-55
Bancroft, Popular Tribunals (San Francisco, 1887), I, 449-52
Hittell, op. cit.y III, 712-26.
57
note 2 above
58
Barry and Patten, op. cit., p. 269.
59
Kimball's San Francisco Directory
Levy, op. cit., pp. 68-69.
71
note 55 above.
Berkeley, c1919
Saint-Amant, op. cit., pp. 138, 408-411
Auger, op. cit., pp. 209-219
Ernest Frignet, La Californie ... (Paris, 1866), pp. 177-79, 196-202
72
Rockwell D. Hunt, "History of the California State Division Controversy," Pubis., Hist. Soc. Southern Calif., XIII (1924), 37-53.
76
his letter to Consul Dillon, dated from San Francisco, October 7,1850 [Document II].
80
Moerenhout returned to Monterey in 1852.
81
Quarterly, June 1948, p. 144.
82
Nasatir, as cited in note 1 above.
This content is only available via PDF.

Article PDF first page preview

Article PDF first page preview