My Extended Jamboree Weekend

Well, I had a great time at Jamboree this year.  Every day was full of informative sessions, and I saw many genealogy colleagues in person.  I started with the first session every day and finished with the last.  I didn't realize how much I was doing until I discovered I was too tired to write every night!  But I didn't want to miss a thing.

The highlight for me on Friday (my first day at the conference, because I didn't go to the DNA Thursday events) was the "Manumissions and Motivations:  Uncovering Possible Family Connections" session by Michael Nolden Henderson.  He discussed a case study from his own family research, where reading between the lines in a manumission and extrapolating the information pointed to the probable family connection it concealed.  He has done some impressive research on his family, going back several generations.  I also heard Gena Philibert-Ortega talk about "Women's Work:  Tracing Your Ancestor's Ouccupations and Volunteer Work", which surprisingly had only about 20 people in attendance in a room capable of holding more than 100.  The day's (and the weekend's) "lowlight" was the Librarian's Boot Camp, which ran from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon; I wish I had slept in.

Although I didn't attend the Friday banquet, I heard the next day that the speaker, David Rencher, gave my blog a callout.  Linda Okazaki, the California Genealogical Society president, told me that he showed an image of my post about the situation with the Solano County Archives in conjunction with his discussion about records preservation and the roles that genealogists can play in publicizing that type of information and bringing it to the attention of others.  That's pretty cool!

Saturday was full of great sessions.  Unfortunately, several of them were scheduled at the same time as mine, so I couldn't go to them in person!  But I was able to hear Michael Strauss talk about "Secret Societies:  Finding Your Ancestors in Fraternal Organizations", which was educational and fun.  He has found information about some truly "interesting" organizations, and he's a very enthusiastic speaker.  Karen Mauer Jones' presentation, "Low Bridge, Ev'rybody Down:  Navitaging the Erie Canal Records", and Connie Lenzen's on "Strategies for Adoption Research and Finding Other Missing Persons" were also full of useful content and methods.

Sunday was a shorter day, but many sessions still sounded really good.  The best was Pam Vestal's talk on "Voting Records:  Genealogy's Best Kept Secret."  While I don't think of voting records as that big of a secret, she has found some unusual items, including the fact that Multnomah County, Oregon voter cards asked for full names of the parents of the person registering, making them another place one can look for maiden names.  I also enjoyed the Rev. David McDonald's session, "An Illegitimacy:  A Mid-19th Century German Immigrant to the U.S.", and I have finally heard a presentation by JewishGen's Warren Blatt, who spoke on "Polish-Jewish Genealogical Research."

Part of what kept me so busy was the extra volunteering I was doing.  I was a room monitor for four speaker sessions and a research assistant for three time slots.  I also spent about an hour and a half at the California State Genealogical Alliance information table on Friday afternoon and spoke to a few people about the organization.  And CSGA helds its board meeting on Saturday, which I attended, because I am a board member.

I was able to do some socializing, though.  I went to lunch with seventeen other genealogists who have gone (or are going) through the ProGen Study Group, and now I have faces I can put to several names.  I also was part of the California Genealogical Society group photo, where I learned a fantastic way of organizing people for group photos.  I hope I remember it the next time the occasion arises.  And I ran into several friends just walking around.

I have to say I had a successful conference.  I learned a lot, saw old genealogy friends and made new ones, and had a great time!  About the only thing that could have made it better would be if I had won one of the door prizes, but I guess you can't have everything.

As if all that hadn't been enough, the day after the conference, I wrapped up my long weekend by speaking at the Jewish Genealogical Society of Los Angeles on Monday evening.  My presentation on finding women's maiden names went well, and a lot of people had great questions.  I left immediately afterward and made it back to Oakland at 3:00 a.m. Tuesday.  My car then proceeded to die on me later on Tuesday morning, but it managed to last long enough for me to pick my birds up from boarding and get them home.

I haven't driven to Los Angeles in a few years, and I have to admit I was surprised by the changes in what I saw on the way south.  There used to be several citrus groves along I-5, but now most of them appear to have been pushed aside in favor of stand after stand of almond trees.  Until I got close to the Grapevine, I had seen only one citrus stand.  Even down south I saw (yet more) almond trees.  There used to be many plantings of grapes, but this time I saw only a few.  Apparently almonds really do rule.  Also missing up north were the fun rhyming highway signs from Shane P. Donlon, who probably had been inspired by Burma Shave.  Now that I think about it, a lot of those signs were in the now-missing citrus groves.

One thing that hadn't changed was how many rivers, creeks, and other water courses were bone dry:  Ortigalita Creek, Salado Creek, Kern River, Arroyo Pasajero, and far too many more.  Of course, the Kern River flood canal ("flood" being a euphemism for agricultural run-off) wasn't wanting for water.  And somehow, Orestimba Creek managed to have a reasonable amount of water.  But it sure was a dry-looking drive down.

The Solano County Archives Are in Indefinite Storage

archival documents on
shrink-wrapped wooden carts

During my series of "Treasure Chest Thursday" posts about the cache of documents I was given relating to Emma (Schafer) Petit La Forêt, I've noted that she was often living in Vallejo, in Solano County, California, when several of those documents were created.  In addition, I wrote that my plan to try to learn "someday" whether the file for Emma's divorce from Emile Petit still existed moved up on my to-do list after I gave a presentation to the Solano County Genealogical Society and spoke to a volunteer from the Solano County Archives.

Well, I have learned that the divorce shows up in the index for civil cases from the Superior Court.  I learned that Emma first filed for divorce in 1906, prior to when she paid Emile Petit to stay out of her life forever.  And that seems to be as far as it can go right now, because I also learned that the Solano County Archives is in a state of limbo.  Above is a photograph of the current status of the archives, according to information on the Solano County Historical Society site.

I sent an official request for records retrieval.  The Solano County employee who responded to my request said that the documents just can't be found.  They might be lost, they might be misfiled, they might be in a box where someone can't read the numbers because they're on a shrink-wrapped cart — oh, wait, that last one was not one of the reasons the employee cited.  That's my own suggestion after looking at the photograph.

At this point Solano County apparently has no idea of when the question of what will happen to its archival materials will be resolved.  I was told it could take "several months" but no specific timeline.

These archival documents go back to 1850.  That's definitely worth preserving!  Some people in Solano County believe an official county archive should be established and now have an online petition to try to accomplish that.

To be fair, there is at least one more side to the story.  One person has put forth that Solano County has higher priorities than funding an archive.  That individual wrote to me that archival requests number no more than one per month, although no basis for the statistic was given.  That sounds rather low to me, considering the explosion of interest in family history that has taken over this country (remember, it's now the second highest Internet topic, right behind porn!).  The person in question did not state where knowledge of the situation came from and did not list any affiliation with the archives.

I have to admit I probably lean more toward hoping the county can have its own archives.  In theory it might be possible for the Solano County documents to be incorporated into the holdings of the California State Archives, but there's no guarantee that the state is willing or able to take on the additional material, and no indication that the idea has been broached to the state at all.  In addition, it would mean that local residents would have to go out of the county to research their own area.  My opinion holds little weight here, however, because I don't live in Solano County.  Residents of Solano County need to let their opinions be known to the county Board of Supervisors as soon as possible, whichever side of the debate they are on, because the board might make a decision as early as June.  Until the issue is resolved, research into the history of Solano County appears to be derailed.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Emma Receives a Copy of Her Divorce Decree

This week's document is a letter from Emma Petit's lawyer, John T. Ryan, to Emma.  This is another piece of paper that may have been white originally but now is a creamy off-white.  It is 8 1/2" x 11" and has two folds that suggest it was mailed in a regular business envelope.  It also has another fold made when the bottom third of the letter was folded.  It is typed on letterhead from the American Tire Armor Company, of which John T. Ryan was the general manager.  When I received it, the letter was in an oversized business envelope.  It does not appear to be the envelope in which Emma received the letter, as no mailing address or postage stamp is on it.  The word "Divorce" is written on the envelope in pencil.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

JOHN T. RYAN, GEN. MGR.                                                                               PHONE: DOUGLAS 1618

AMERICAN TIRE ARMOR COMPANY [graphic]

                                    814 PACIFIC BLDG.

THE FEATURE OF THE
S. F. AND FRESNO                                                             SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. 4/8/08.
AUTOMOBILE SHOWS


Mrs. Emma Margaret Petit,
         Route #38,  Box 57,
                 Anglum, Missouri.

Dear Madam:–

                    On the receipt of your letter some time ago, I took
up the matter of getting a final decree of divorce and it was
granted on the 30th of March.  In some way or other I mislaid
your address and your letter of this morning was rather timely.
                    Enclosed you will find a certified copy of the final
decree, which you desire.
                    Hoping that this will prove satisfactory and with best
wishes for your future success, I remain,
                                                 Yours very truly,

                                                               John T. Ryan .    [signature]

Encl.
JTR/DA

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised Emma's divorce lawyer was the general manager of a tire-related company.  Maybe he handled the case as a favor for Emma.  He apparently had someone available to type the letter for him, as evidenced by the last line, "JTR/DA."  For those not familiar with secretarial conventions, that means the letter was typed for JTR, i.e., John T. Ryan, and was typed by DA, whoever that might be.

The letter was mailed to Emma in Missouri.  We have no information about when she went there or how long she stayed.  It took some searching to find Anglum.  It no longer exists under that name but was renamed Robertson in 1929 (for the man who paid for the design and construction of Charles Lindbergh's plane Spirit of St. Louis).  Then Google Maps refused to recognize Robertson as a location, so I had to go to Mapquest, which showed that it is about 12 miles from Clayton, which was mentioned in the typed narrative about Emma's early life, and 8 miles from Maryland Heights, where Emma wrote that her oldest daughter and her husband were living.  So it seems that some time after filing for divorce Emma decided to leave California, at least for a while, and go "home" to where her family lived.

The copy of the divorce decree to which John Ryan referred is probably the one that I described last week.  The two items appear to have been separated over time and during multiple changes of caretakers.

Speaking of Emma's divorce, two weeks ago I wrote that I was going to investigate "at some point" whether the complete file had survived.  Coincidentally, on February 6 I gave a presentation to the Solano County Genealogical Society.  While I was there I asked whether anyone knew about the status of divorce files from that far back.  One of the people attending was actually a volunteer archivist for the Solano County Archives!  She told me where to send an inquiry, and I have learned that the file does indeed still exist.  One important fact that I've already been told is that Emma filed in 1906, before she paid Emile to leave.  I'm looking forward to reading the file when I receive a copy.

And of course I had to look up the American Tire Armor Company.  John Ryan was one of five men who organized the company in Vallejo in 1908, with the aim of manufacturing and marketing a steel automatic automobile tire.  In March 1908 he applied for patents for a tire protector and an armored pneumatic tire, assigning the patents to the company.  A large ad seeking investors for the company was published in the San Francisco Chronicle on June 14, 1908.  Ryan was granted his patents in 1913.

One last comment:  Who would have guessed that in 1908 a car show in Fresno would be considered on the same level as one in San Francisco?

Treasure Chest Thursday: Emma and Emile Petit's Divorce Is Finalized

When I read the receipt of payment for Emma Petit's lawyer in conjunction with her divorce case, I was surprised it came chronologically before the divorce itself was finalized.  Maybe the lawyer was not concerned about the final decree taking place?  Whatever the reason, the next item is Emma's Decree of Divorce.  This appears to be an original document from the Superior Court of Solano County, with an impressed seal.  It is watermarked bond, 14" x 8 1/2".  The paper may have originally been white, but it is now a creamy off-white.  I've underlined the parts that are handwritten.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

No. 3230

SUPERIOR COURT

SOLANO COUNTY.

  Emma Margaret Petit    

                      Plaintiff __

 vs.

    Emile Petit                  

                   Defendant     

Decree of Divorce.

Filed  March 30th.  , 1908 

    G. G. Halliday            

                            Clerk.

By  _________________

                Deputy Clerk.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
                                                 SS.
COUNTY OF SOLANO.

       I, the undersigned, County Clerk of the County of Solano, State of California, and ex-officio Clerk of the Superior Court of said County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the final decree and judgment madein the above entitled action on the    30th    day of    March    , A. D. 1908 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my

hand  affixed  the  Seal  of  said  Court  this

  30th   day of   March   , A. D. 1908 

 (signature)  G. G. Halliday 

Clerk.

By ____________________

Deputy Clerk.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

In the Superior Court

OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOLANO.

_______________________________
Emma Margaret Petit
                           Plaintiff,
vs.                                                                             Decree of Divorce.
Emile Petit
                           Defendant.
_______________________________

     This cause having been brought on to be heard the   11th   day of     March         A. D., 1907 , upon the complaint herein, taken as confessed by the defendant (whose default for not answering had been duly entered), and evidence having been adduced from which it appeared that all the allegations of the complaint were true, whereupon an Interlocutory Judgement was made and entered declaring that Plaintiff was entitled to a divorce from said Defendant upon the grounds of     Extreme Cruelty         and more than one year having expired after the entry of said Interlocutory Judgment, and no appeal from said judgment haveing been taken or motion for a new trial made, now
     Upon motion of             John T. Ryan             , counsel for said Plain-
tiff, and good cause appearing therefore,
     It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed, and this Court, by virtue of the power and authority therein vested, and in pursuance of the Statute in such case made and provided, DOES ORDER, ADJUDGE AND DECREE, that the marriage between the said Plaintiff,      Emma Margaret Petit       and the said Defendant,      Emile Petit      be dissolved, and the same is hereby dissolved accordingly, and the said parties are and each of them is freed and absolutely released from the bonds of matrimony, and all the obligations thereof.
  It is further ordered that the custody of children of said marriage  
  heretofore awarded to plaintiff be and it is hereby confirmed.         
______________________________________________________
Done in open Court this     30th .    day of      March           A. D., 1908 

(signature)           L. G. Harrier .          

Judge of the Superior Court.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

In Emma's handwritten narrative, she mentioned that Emile had not appeared in court for the divorce suit, and here that's confirmed.  The case was first heard on Match 11, 1907, four months after Emile accepted $500 from Emma to leave her and Vallejo, so she paid him off before filing.  Since part of his agreement was that he would "never again intrude upon her presence", maybe that's why he didn't appear in court.

Emile and Emma's children are mentioned almost in passing in the decree, only to confirm that Emma will retain custody of them, but they are not named.  If the file still exists in Solano County, it should have more details about them.

As an editor, I was amused by some of the spelling I found.  On the outside jacket we see "judgment", but on the inside decree it's spelled "judgement" once and "judgment" twice.  Somehow I don't expect legal court papers to have spelling errors.  And it's in the preprinted part!

Treasure Chest Thursday: Emma Petit's Divorce Lawyer

We have previously read that Emma (Schafer) Petit divorced her husband, Emile Petit.  This week's very short document in Emma's ongoing story is the receipt for her payment for legal services in conjunction with her divorce suit against Emile.  It is handwritten in beautiful penmanship with pencil on a piece of 10" x 8" lined paper.  The paper was folded into quarters.  The reverse is blank.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

                   Vallejo, Cal. Mar. 14/07

Received from Mrs. E. Petit
Fifty Dollars <$50.00> in full
for legal services in divorce
action of Petit vs. Petit

                        John T. Ryan.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

It appears that Emma was still living in Vallejo when she divorced Emile.  I have to admit, I wonder how $50 ranked in 1907 for the services of a divorce lawyer.  Was that low end, middle of the road, or top notch?  How did California's rates compare to the rest of the country?

Emma apparently paid for the divorce, and she also paid Emile $500 to write himself out of her life.  She must have had money of her own, but so far nothing has specifically been said about her having a job.

At some point in the future I will probably want to try to obtain a copy of the complete divorce file.  I hope Solano County hasn't done what New Haven County, Connecticut, and San Francisco did:  dump all of their old divorce files (without microfilming them!) because they had space problems and decided the files just weren't important and no one would ever want them.  Even with that, at least San Francisco kept the registers of actions.  New Haven has nothing left.