Tuesday, May 15, 2018

[SEVENTEEN]
Pearl's Home
with Austin McManus

Pearl’s Legacy

From Draft, July 7, 1949 – MEMORANDUM to the Internal Revenue Service to justify treating sales of land by Pearl McCallum McManus as Capital Gains.

  Despite a careful search among the authorities, we have found no case involving the treatment of gains on sale of real property which resembles the present case in all respects.  The reason is that the taxpayer principally involved, Mrs. McManus, is a very unusual and exceptional personality.  Her personality and approach to life have dominated her conduct and her method of handling her real property.
  One controlling influence upon Mrs. McManus’ life has been her very justifi­able reverence and devotion to the memory of her father.  He was the founder of Palm Springs in her view. . . . Mrs. McManus has based much of her conduct upon her belief that her father founded Palm Springs and did so with certain definite motives and high aspirations for the success of this area.
  Many examples of this motivation of Mrs. McManus are available.  In 1926, with considerable risk and the incurring of substantial indebtedness which was repugnant to her, Mrs. McManus commenced the building of the Oasis Hotel.  This hotel is located on Palm Canyon Drive in the heart of Palm Springs.  It is no coinci­dence that the site of the hotel is the very spot where Mr. McCallum constructed the family home in which Mrs. McManus grew up.  She selected that site because she wished the Oasis to be a memorial to her father.
Ground Breaking - Oasis Hotel

  She employed an outstanding architect, Lloyd Wright, the son of the famous Frank Lloyd Wright, generally known as the father of modern architecture.  She spent much time with this architect planning and devising the construction of a tower, which she regarded particularly as being in memory of her father.  They also spent much time upon the design of the various public rooms . . . In building the hotel Mrs. McManus insisted that as few trees on the site be destroyed as possible.  There are a number of portions of the hotel which were built around trees, although the architect advised Mrs. McManus that it might cost as much as a thousand dollars extra to do so.  All of this was because . . . this site was the McCallum family home site.
  Mrs. McManus was so absorbed in the design of the architectural and artistic features of this hotel that she gave little attention to its commercial or profit-making aspects.  While it had very large parlors and dining room, and the first swimming pool in Palm Springs, and a beautiful garden, it included only 24 hotel rooms. . . . woefully inadequate to support the operation which the rest of the project required.  This is typical of her concentration upon artistic and what she refers to as “interest­ing” aspects of projects as distinguished from their economical value and usefulness.  .  .  .
  Another illustration of Mrs. McManus’ concentration upon activities which would perpetuate the memory of her father was the moving of a portion of the old family home to another site when the Oasis was commenced.  The original McCallum home was an adobe house in part, which included bedrooms and kitchen of wooden construction.  It was impossible to salvage the adobe portion of the house but Mrs. McManus insisted that the wooden portion . . . must be moved to another location.  She was advised by a carpenter that this portion of the house could not be moved two blocks with­out falling apart.  She insisted, nevertheless, and it was bolstered up and at considerable expense, moved to another location.  She then added to it and improved its appearance and used it as a home for some time.
Pearl and Austin

  In this connection it is of interest that because of a great need for funds, Mrs. McManus finally commenced renting it first as a house and later as a restau­rant.  It was added to from time to time by various tenants and finally was made into an apartment building and is now the Rancho Apartments, which was sold by Mrs. McManus in 1946.

Memorials to her father

  While she has never been able to put such plans into effect as yet, Mrs. McManus has at least two very definite ideas as to a proposed memorial to her father.  One is for a quiet place of contemplation to be dedicated as a small public park on one of the hillside properties which she owns, which would be a memorial to Mr. McCallum.  Another idea, based on the crucial importance of water in the desert areas—a problem which her father faced and attempted to solve—is for a series of drinking fountains for people and animals to be placed at strategic locations through the desert area from Palm Springs to Indio.
  Because of her strong attachment to the memory of her father . . . Mrs. McManus has a very strong sentiment concern­ing the City of Palm Springs.  We believe that she can convince anyone of her utterly sincere concern for and interest in the welfare of the City . . . She has given property on a number of occasions to the city or to civic organizations.  For example, she has made gifts of property as building sites to the Palm Springs Women’s Club and the Palm Springs Masonic Lodge.  Within the last few months she deeded the rights of way for flood control purposes to the County of Riverside along Tahquitz Creek, in a location where the value of the property involved is several thousand dollars.
  Although she has a considerable amount of property along Palm Canyon Drive which would benefit from valuations based on industrial use, Mrs. McManus has always opposed any industrial usage or development of property along Palm Canyon Drive.  In addition, she has been very particular about any use of her property at any location for commercial purposes which would not meet her standards of what would be best for the permanent artistic develop­ment of the city.  For example . . . property on Palm Canyon Drive for the construction of a lumber yard.  She consistently refused to sell such property until the buyer persuaded her that he would erect a very high-class structure of sound architectural design and would shield the lumber yard itself from view by a high fence.  This convinced Mrs. McManus that the development would be an appropriate one and she was willing to lease but would not sell the property to Mr. Hyde, but by the time his plans changed and he entered his development at another location.
  Mrs. McManus has a long, well-substantiated record of refusing to sell prop­erty when the seller or his plans for the use of the property did not meet her wishes.  As a matter of fact, she has probably turned down more sales than she has made.  A complete record of sales turned down cannot, of course, be pre­sented as there is no written record of such transactions and Mrs. McManus naturally cannot remember them all.  Following, however, are a few examples of such transactions which have been turned down by Mrs. McManus:

Mrs. McManus’ “Front Yard.”  Directly across the street from Mrs. McManus’ home is a row of approximately 10 lots in a very choice location, near the Tennis Club, and otherwise desirable.  Mrs. McManus’s very attractive front porch looks out directly across these lots.  She has had many offers to purchase them.  She has uniformly refused all offers because she regards this as her “front yard” and does not wish it encumbered with improvements.  The real estate brokers in Palm Springs now know this and do not submit offers for this property.
  The portions of Section 29 which Mrs. McManus still owns lie on both sides of the main highway from Palm Springs to Indio, which is undergoing very extensive development.  The small parts of that section which she sold many years ago to Mr. Cree have been utilized for some commercial development, including an attractive restaurant.  Mrs. McManus has had many offers to buy or lease parcels from Section 29, located on the highway, to be used for many different types of stores and commercial structures.  She has uniformly rejected such offers because they do not accord with her dreams for the development of this property.  Her main hope is that some time this property may be used for the construction of a beautiful hotel which would be principally in the moun­tainous portion of the section, looking down across the valley.  A group of small stores and commercial structures would interfere with this plan.  She has there­fore rejected any offers for such uses.
  Block 19, Lots 5-7 property is located on Palm Canyon Drive between Arenas and Baristo Roads.  It is in the area of very handsome new commercial devel­opments, such as Bullock’s Palm Springs store.  Mrs. McManus has had a number of offers for the purchase of this property.  She has rejected them all because she has the hope of constructing a particular type of development on it herself.  She wishes to create here a U-shaped series of shops which would become the art center of Palm Springs.  It would be occupied by shops specializing in the various arts and crafts and would have space for the exhibi­tion of artistic work of various types, and for other artistic uses.  Until she becomes convinced that she will not be able to make such a development of this property, Mrs. McManus will undoubtedly continue to reject offers for it, despite its very high value.
  Rejection of offers to purchase property by Mrs. McManus has been typi­cal of her property holding from the beginning.  In approximately 1911, when Mrs. Coffman, developer and owner of the Desert Inn, first came to Palm Springs, she offered to purchase the location upon which the Oasis Hotel was subse­quently built, the old McCallum home place, for $10,000, consisting of $5,000 cash and $5,000 worth of property in Santa Monica.  Mrs. McManus could not bear to see the family home site owned and developed by a stranger and forth­with rejected this offer.  She owned the property for 17 more years, until she sold the Oasis Hotel in 1928.
  [After development of the Oasis Hotel in 1926] Mrs. McManus’s next major development was the Palm Springs Tennis Club.  This has achieved an especial reputation as a place of unique design, blending very attractively into the desert terrain, and of high operating standards.  The unique design of the Tennis Club is no accident.  It was the result of years of thought and planning . . . .  She derived the idea for the oval-shaped Tennis Club swim­ming pool from a swim­ming pool which she saw in Morocco, where she went for the particular pur­pose of studying architecture which might be suitable for desert development.  The blending of the original Palm Springs Tennis Club design into the rocky hillside where it is located was the result of her insistence that the foot of the mountain should not be touched, or gouged into.

  The other principal structure built by Mrs. McManus is her present home, built in 1928.  It likewise is located upon the rocky hillside and blends attrac­tively into the hillside.  The entire front of its living room consists of removable glass doors opening onto a large porch with an attractive view over the desert. / / /
  Reviewing this appeal to IRS by Pearl in 1949, one cannot help wondering how much of her desire to preserve the memory of her father in Palm Springs has been accomplished.  Embracing the inevitable presence of Hollywood stars wasn’t a problem for her so long as they kept their moral transgressions behind the high walls of their homes and displayed in public what was expected of them by adoring fans.
  Today, her grand “Pink Villa” is gone, replaced by an office building for the Tennis Club which Pearl sold in the 1940s—a three storied cement box with glass windows, the building of which necessitated gouging into the mountain.  Harry’s Hillside House—which, significantly Pearl repurchased at the same time she sold the Tennis Club—is no longer nestled on the slope of the mountain.  It was torn down in 1970, the mountain once again gouged out to make room for two additional tennis courts by the Club’s new owners.
  McCallum Way, the boulevard running from Palm Springs airport into the heart of the village, was first renamed Tahquitz-McCallum Way, and now is simply, Tahquitz Way.  My late sister, Edith, reported to me that an attempt had been made to chisel out Pearl’s name on the fountain at the airport which she donated in her lifetime.  Fortunately, that attempt failed.  The adobe “family home,” as Pearl called it, is the only site memorializing her father, maintaining a certain dignity as a  museum on Palm Canyon Drive.
  But the very existence of Palm Springs today is perhaps a fitting memorial to John Guthrie and Emily, and Harry, and May and Hamilton Forline—as well as Pearl.  Perhaps this history will serve also as a reminder, at least, of their sacrifices which in the early years assured the survival of this desert oasis.

From Palm Springs Life – April, 1984 issue

The McCallum Saga Continues - Dana F. Skolfield:

  The truth is that strong family ties existed among the McCallums and Hamilton Forline (M.D.) in those early years, as well as mutual regard, and this regard existed until Pearl’s death in 1966.  Pearl spoke glowingly of her sister May to me on several occasions—and to other members of the family.  Also, Pearl’s actions throughout her life proved the obligation she felt toward her sister May who died at the early age of 39 leaving four children.
  Following J.G. McCallum’s death on February 5, 1897, and up to May’s death in November 1908, all members of the family, including Hamilton Forline, acted in concert on at least three specific occasions to protect the McCallum Ranch (“about sixty acres” of land from Palm Canyon Drive up the mountain)—that is, acted to keep this land in the family.
  The “deeding back” of interest in land—and water company stock—did occur in February 1898, and these deeds show that all three children, Harry, May, and Pearl, deeded their undivided interests in the McCallum Ranch (worth far more than all other land) back to their mother Emily.  . . . [In this cross-deed­ing] each received 180 acres of land out on the desert—not worth much—as well as portions of land closer into town.  This land was lost to both May and Pearl to creditors and an option against the property at a later date.  Harry also was deeded back title to “syndicate land” in this February 1898 family distribution, the title of which was to give Pearl many headaches following the death of her mother Emily in 1914.  But that’s a story in itself.
  The key to understanding this family “cross-deeding” and redistribution in 1898 is that the family intended to secure their primary and most valuable pro­perty—the McCallum Ranch, and to protect their mother’s interests in it.
  . . . Had it not been for the efforts, and sometimes sacrifices of Harry McCallum, May and Dr. Forline in the years 1899 to 1907, this center of Palm Springs (the former “McCallum Ranch”) could easily have been lost and developed by greedy, disinterested creditors.  (In the early years, John G. McCallum had to fight off those who would build cement factories in Palm Springs, and precipitated a fight with his syndicate partners.)
  [Harry McCallum’s] personal difficulties are spelled out in his journal entry of February 8, 1899.  This involved an annulled marriage, which—interesting to note—has never been noted in any history, yet was the direct result of May selling the land cross-deeded to her; in two sales, Harry using May and Hamilton’s Power of Attorney—all of which totaled a little more than one-thousand dollars—far away from a reported $10,000!
  Also revealed by Harry’s journal of 1899 is that Dr. Forline gave up his interest in a clinic in Chicago (Western Springs) to come with May to Palm Springs in 1899, together with their (then only) two children, John McCallum and Katherine.  They remained for two years in the area.  There is record of Dr. Forline being “Physician to the Mission Indians” possibly during this period, or from 1905-1910 when May and Hamilton again returned to the area (Red­lands), now with four children . . . It was Pearl’s desire, as it was the desire of Harry, May and Hamilton in the early part of this century, to keep the land at any cost.
  John Guthrie McCallum’s early struggle in the 1880s was a fight to keep out land speculators, as any reading of the Palm Valley Water Company’s articles will attest.  You had to live on the land and cultivate it in those days in order to own it.  That’s how Palm Springs began as a community, a unique experiment in the history of California land development. / / /

Thursday, May 3, 2018

[SIXTEEN]
                                                  Pearl McCallum McManus
                                                             at 50 years

They Can't Tear Down the Mountain

Emily and Pearl

1

  For six years after May died, Pearl and her mother were indeed alone on the desert, struggling to exist, refusing to sell the land John Guthrie had nurtured and protected for his heirs.  They were cash poor and relied on Hamilton Forline to help out with the taxes.  Pearl needed a miracle to survive and take care of Emily.  But Hamilton Forline was not that miracle.  He wasn’t in love with Pearl and never had been.  Although not a 19th Century chauvinist, his idea of a woman was that she should at least be feminine and docile—to a degree.  Pearl fit neither description.  Pearl was strong-willed and had become as harsh as the desert in her affections.  Her desperation to survive with an ailing mother toughened her.
  She must get control of the land titles.  And if Hamilton couldn’t take care of his children, she convinced herself she somehow would find a way to do so, in years to come.  She would build her Palm Springs holdings into some­thing of worth, and May’s children would benefit.  It would not be easy, certainly not as her father had envisioned Palm Springs—as an agricultural wonder­land.  The obstacles seemed insurmountable.

Extract:- Pearl McCallum’s Appeal to the Government for Water Rights

[Note: throughout, Pearl has spelled her family name MacCallum—here corrected.  Emphasis in italics is added.]

”Palm Springs, California, April Fourth, Nineteen hundred and eleven”

  From the occupancy of The McCallum Ranch by white men and the development of the water with building of the big ditch by white men to the year 1904, the water was justly controlled by them, but as the Indians had lived here in the valley first and although they had little or nothing under cultivation, the first 30 inches was always allowed them.  Later on, when they, the Indians had planted from 5 to 18 acres we willingly gave them the first 40 inches.
  In 1904 however, through a misunderstanding, the government represented by the attorney for the Indians, Mr. Collier of Riverside, issued an order stating that no white man should touch the ditch or use the water under threat of arrest.  This order was the consequence of a report that a certain white man located on other property in the village had used some of the first 30 inches for irrigational purposes.  The attorney, Mr. Collier, has personally told me that the order was related to the first 30 inches only and should have stood only until the rains came, as he knew that the Indians had no further right to the water.  The order was, however, very naturally interpreted by all as it read and later when there were thousands of inches of water running to waste on the desert, besides all the ditches on the reservation breaking and flooding the streets etc. the Indians would not allow the water to be touched by the white people.
  Previous to this, and due to the great drought so well known to Californians that lasted so many years, the ranch had gradually been dying.  Every effort was made to save it, water being hauled by wagon 3½ miles to the apricot orchard in a vain attempt to save it.
  Judge McCallum and his three sons had died leaving an invalid widow and a daughter to look after the property.  About all they had left – dishonest employees helped to make the loss greater and at the time I write of when the government first started to cause trouble about the water, there was left upon the ranch only the grapes, a few apricots and a half acre of very choice big orange trees.  The income from these trees being the chief source of income for the widow – between $300. and $400. being realized the last years of bearing.
  In 1904, due to Mr. Collier’s order not to use the water, the Indians would not allow anyone to irrigate the grapes or orange trees, although there were thousands of inches of water running to waste.  The trees began to wither and a George Blackburn, passing through the village, noticed the dying trees and offered to take all chance of being arrested and irrigate them at his own risk and expense.  This he was not allowed to do but later Mr. Mendon, a tourist stated it was an outrage upon the part of the government to cause Mrs. McCallum to lose the trees with quantities of water running through her own ranch, and that he should irrigate the trees in spite of everyone.  He was threatened by the Indians but removed the water gate, hid it, and turned the water into the grove for two days.  But the water had come too late and the trees died.  Upon my arrival in 1905 I found the leaves yellowed and dry and trunks with bark mostly peeled off.
  When it is considered that the McCallum Ranch was the first to use this water and had done so uninterruptedly for nearly twenty years, that the loss of the income from the oranges entailed such hardship, can it be wondered at if we considered it unjust of the government that should have protected the invalid widow as well as the husky Indian?
  Upon my return to California I explained the condition to Mr. Collier, the attorney, who stated that he was “sorry” such a blunder had been made and the water was again turned on to the property.  But the trees were dead, and the vineyard too far gone to bear well again for years.
  The water was used then until the advent of Miss True – so unfortunately to the white people, the Indians and the Government.  Acting for the Government and far exceeding her authority, as the officials repeatedly told me, she issued orders through an ugly minded Indian she had appointed policeman, that no white man should touch the ditch or take the water under penalty of arrest and probability of forever losing the use of the water.  Indians patrolled our private properties with pistols and handcuffs, and water when given to us was 15¢ an hour, besides paying the Indians for keeping the ditch in good condition.  Some 200 inches were kept running to the reservation while they had less than 20 acres under cultivation, and this was the largest amount they ever had planted.
  In two places the ditch was broken allowing the water to escape and in one place damage a street, and although the breaks could have been mended by one-half a day’s work, this was not done; the water running so for months.

CARELESSNESS CAUSE OF BIG WASH

  During the summer of 1901, Sept. 1, a heavy rain storm visited the desert.  This would have caused no damage under ordinary circumstances, but the gate in the “Intake” controlling this flow of water into the ditch was gone, thus allowing an enormous head of water to come down the line of the ditch, tearing out the dam, sweeping north and east diagonally across the 20 acre apricot field (where the trees were formerly) then down Park Avenue, then back across the 20 acre field following the line of the Whitewater Canal, breaking through that and tearing a great hole; thence Northeast through a five acre field into Park Street again and out on Main St.  A second wash ran Eastward along the South boundary fence into a 20-acre field, then North and joining the first wash at the Whitewater Canal.
  The gate missing was the cause of the first wash.

Second washout or enlargement of first
due
to deteriorate action of government men.
  The first week in January 1911 the Government sent under Mr. Oldberg, C.E. and Mrs. Makosky, to boss field work, a gang of men to construct a new cement pipe and stone ditch to carry Tahquitz water to the white people and Indians.  A sentiment in the meantime having practically been forced upon the white people whereby the whites were to retain about one-third of Tahquitz water and the Indians two-thirds – Permission was very gladly given the Government men to camp upon The McCallum Ranch.  From the first it was evident that the men in charge were prejudiced against the owners of the property although they had never met them before; this being shown in many little ways and a total disregard for the welfare of the property.
  They wished water for domestic purposes, also for mixing the sand and cement.  A large head was allowed to come down from the Canyon and this was deliberately turned out of the old ditch just south of the Southwest Corner of the ranch where it became an uncontrolled wild stream that ran through the broken dam through the entire length of the ranch causing it to be greatly widened in all places, deepened in some and filled with tons and tons of white sand in others.  This water ran directly in front of the government camp and the men therefore saw from day to day the havoc the water was creating.  Mr. Oldberg was spoken to regarding the damage and he answered very shortly that any damage done would be repaired.  But it continued; Mr. Makosky was spoken to.  It must be remembered that all that was needed to turn the entire flow out of the ditch at the Canyon was the gate that had disappeared from the “Intake” after the government took control.  (It would have taken less than half a day to build and install a new one)  Mr. Makosky answered that he was “too busy” to attend to the water then; later on he returned and stated that the water had been turned away.  I made an investigation and found that the water was then running through a second wash outside the south boundary of the ranch; thence again entering the property through a ten acre field; then north where it rejoined the original wash and continued through the ranch as before.  What Mr. Makosky’s idea in this maneuver was I do not know, for the damage was just as great one way as the other.  This condition had prevailed practically every day for the past three months.  Sunday while dining I found that water they had deliberately turned loose had swept along the Whitewater Canal then onto Indian Ave., the only good street running through the village, washing it out badly and ruining it for driving.  All this was absolutely unnecessary, and could be prevented with a very little work and a few boards with which to make the gate.  I would willingly have done it myself but the government has assumed absolute control and we have long since been forbidden to touch the water or ditch under penalty of arrest.  This wash had practically ruined one half of the McCallum Ranch.  The white sand deposited can never be carried away and good soil can never be substituted for what has been carried away.  The value of this property is for small lots for winter homes for invalid tourists.  Twice this winter I could have sold to parties of wealth and standing – Mr. James Summerton, the famous cartoonist and Mrs. B. W. MacKenzie of Coronado Beach – had not the wash frightened them away.  The entire section through which it passes looks so desolate and dangerous to build upon we cannot but understand why they decided to locate elsewhere.
  The two washes pass through some thirty acres valued at $300.00 an acre.  The work the Government has done with the new ditch and pipe has been very good and both my Mother and myself esteem the men in charge for their proficiency and have done all in our power to facilitate the work.  But this is our home and practically all we have left in the world and the income derived from it is our only living.  We have held it through years of hardship and care and sorrow, looking forward always to the day when the water question should finally be settled with fairness and consideration for all.  Indians and whites alike; with the happy possibility of restoring the fields to once their original cultivation and beauty.
  Instead, we have at our door acres and acres of devastated land that can never be made the same, and the knowledge that all this was caused first by carelessness for need of water gate and secondly, by the deliberate indifference of those in charge of land that is, indeed our all.
2

  In 1913 Pearl met Austin Garfield McManus at the home of friends in Pasadena, a sleepy community nestled beneath the Sierra Madre mountains in northeast Los Angeles County.  Austin and his family owned a small haberdashery shop.  Recently Austin had qualified for a broker’s license.  They talked about getting married someday.  Austin could use  his knowledge, connections, and expertise to help Pearl gather all the loose pieces of unsurveyed, unrecorded, “undivided-interest” land which the McCallums in Palm Springs would have a claim to.  “You don’t need a will from your mother,” he told her.  “We’ll find out what’s there, type it up and get her to quit-claim it all to you.”
  “She’ll never do that,” Pearl complained.  “She expects everything to go to me and May’s children; and if May’s children get involved, we’ll never straighten out the mess my brother Harry left us in.”
  “Let’s figure it all out,” Austin told her, “get it all down on paper.  Then we’ll draw up a quit-claim deed for your mother to sign.  Maybe she’ll sign if she sees what we’ve done to clarify the situation.”
  Early in 1914, fate offered Pearl an opportunity.  She was brought into contact with the estates of her father’s old Syndicate partners.  Once again, as in 1908, John Guthrie’s estate inventory of 1897 would be considered, although the “Final Accounting and Distribution” previously had been issued in “Order 19449 in 1908.”  On January 14, 1914 Pearl received a letter from Archibald J. Treat, “Attorney and Counselor-at-Law” in San Francisco representing the O.C. Miller Estate Company and the Henry C. Campbell Company [in the following letter, emphasis is added]:

To:  Miss Pearl McCallum
1485 Park Avenue
Riverside, California
Dear Madam:
Since my letter to you of the 14th I have received a reply to my letter to the Riverside Abstract Company asking about Section 25, Township 4 South, Range 4 East . . . In the decree of distribution in the matter of the estate of your father the only reference to Section 25 . . . As stated in my letter to you, there is no record of a deed from the Southern Pacific Railroad Company to your father of W. ½ of Section 25, and the N. ½ of the N.E. ¼ of Sec. 25.

It occurred to me that your father might have had a deed to the land last described which he had failed to record, and that the decree of distribution, a copy of which appears in the abstract in my possession, would indicate this.  But as stated, there is no reference in the decree of final distribution.
. . . On the other hand, I feel quite sure that your father would not have deeded an interest to this land unless he owned it.

It occurs to me that there may still be amongst your father’s papers an unrecorded deed and I write to suggest that you make a search to see if you cannot clear up the matter.  Signed:  A.J. Treat”
Section 25 was acreage southwest of the village, part of which was later developed as the Smoke Tree Ranch.  Tracing ownership to Section 25, Pearl re-discovered that in John Guthrie’s 1897 inventory, he owned a “Possessory claim on the Southeast quarter and the South half of the Northeast quarter of Section 25 . . . and improvements hereon. . . .”  No acreage given, but the property had been cross-deeded to Emily by her children in 1898.  As to the remainder of Section 25, Treat writes that the Riverside Title & Abstract Company cannot render any title to this portion of Section 25.  Pearl knew this and this was her purpose in writing to Treat.  She was trying to get title to all of Harry’s “Syndicate” property which had been partitioned to him by the heirs in 1898, and therefore had passed back into the family after his death.  Pearl now realized she must get her mother to quit claim all of this “Syndicate” land to her—otherwise May’s children would have a one-half claim to it after Emily’s death.

  But there were problems.  Pearl had learned from Treat that a portion of Section 25 was not in the 1897 inventory and so not cross-deeded to Harry.  On January 20 and 24, 1914 Pearl wrote to H.A. Campbell.  Then on the 24th wrote to Treat.  Treat refers to these letters in his letter to Pearl on 
February 4.

Received yours of January 24th:

I note what you say about the quit-claim deeds to your father from the Southern Pacific Railroad Company which you have found.  It is as to Section 25 that we desire proof to title . . .

I have your letter of January 20th addressed to H.A. Campbell, together with enclosures . . . return the original to you as requested . . . From this letter of your father to W.A. Purrington dated March 17th (evidently your father’s copy) it would seem that your father had a contract with the Southern Pacific Com­pany to purchase section 25, because lands in that section are included in the offer of your father to Mr. Purrington.  It is probable that this contract was never recorded . . .

I have received reply to my letter to the Riverside Abstract Company stating that they will give a certificate of title to us for the sum of Three Hundred Dollars, but that it will take about a month to furnish it.  They did not give the all important information desired, which is whether they can show clear title to the lands involved in certain designated persons, the O.C. Miller Estate Company, Henry C. Campbell Co., and the heirs of your father, or such of them as may hold the legal title.  [Pearl was well aware this meant Harry as owner of these “lands” passing his interests to Emily, which later Emily to Pearl and May’s children after May died].

The O.C. Miller Estate Company and the Henry C. Campbell Co. are desirous of disposing of their interest in Palm Valley.  I venture the suggestion that you find the purchaser, tie him up with a contract to purchase, and we can address ourselves to the straightening out of the title afterwards.

Very truly yours, A.J. Treat.

  At last!  The Syndicate partners now had indeed entered into Pearl’s efforts to secure title to all her father’s land in Palm Springs!  She realized she now was close to achieving that end.  But she must get her mother to quit claim all titles to her.  Emily could pass on at any moment.  Pearl had placed her in Loma Linda Sanitarium close to Redlands, north of Riverside in San Bernardino County.  If her mother were to pass on unexpectedly, title to the Syndicate land would be half-owned by May’s children.
  Pearl and Austin were married in Orange on May 6, 1914.  A week later, honeymooning in San Diego, they received word that Emily’s health was failing rapidly.  They panicked, hurriedly typed out a Quit Claim Deed and rushed to her bedside at Loma Linda Sanitarium.  At the very moment of her passing on May 21 in Loma Linda, a Quit Claim Deed was signed by “Emily McCallum, her mark”—an X, one shaking line crossed by a firm stroke.
  Following is an obituary from the Riverside Press, Friday, May 24, 1914, discovered among Pearl’s effects after her death in 1966.  We see may now view from this that Emilie is no longer a shadowy creature.  Here, published for the first time since its publication in 1914 is the obituary obviously written by Pearl herself.  No one then living could’ve known anything about Emily’s past:


MRS. J.G. McCALLUM
______________

Widow of Former Judge Passes
Away While in This City
­_______          _____

  A long and eventful life came to a peaceful end last evening when Mrs. Emily McCallum, widow of Judge J.G. McCallum, passed away at the home of Mrs. B. Rhoades, 1485 Park Avenue, at the age of 72 years.  The funeral service will be held in the Rosedale chapel, Los Angeles, tomorrow afternoon.
  Mrs. McCallum came to California in 1859 [age 17] from New Haven, Connecticut by way of the Isthmus of Panama.  She was a passenger on the boat, Orizaba, that was afterward burned at San Francisco with great loss of life.  The deceased went to live in Jackson, Amador County, and it was there she married Judge J.G. McCallum in 1862.  With her family she moved to Los Angeles in 1884.  They made their home at 243 West Adams Street many years.  For 26 years she lived in Palm Springs, where Judge McCallum owned exten­sive land interests, now owned by his daughter.
  The deceased had been an invalid 14 years and although shut indoors all this time, she was of a cheerful, Christian disposition and a patient sufferer that won many friends.  She was a faithful member of Calvary Presbyterian Church.
  She leaves a daughter, Mrs. Austin Garfield McManus, whose home is in Pasadena.  Mrs. McManus was married two weeks ago in Orange and was called from her honeymoon trip to Oceanside and San Diego by the serious illness of her mother.
___________________

  No mention of Emily’s grandchildren as survivors:  John McCallum, Katherine, Jane, and Marjorie Forline.  Although an invalid 14 years [since 1900] and although shut indoors all this time,  Emily had managed to live in Chicago from 1900 to 1904; at the Adobe in Palm Springs, and in Los Angeles.  She died, not at 1485 Park Avenue in Riverside but was a patient at Loma Linda Sani­tarium.  (The ledgers for the period January, 1914, through July, 1914 are missing, so this can’t be verified.)
  A search for Emily’s death certificate was made in the records of Riverside County and wasn’t found.  Since Emily might have died in Loma Linda Sanitarium, however, San Bernardino County records were searched.  Again not found, until it was discovered several pages away from the correct spelling, “McCallum” in a certificate firmly written and clearly spelled “McCullum . . . In the City—Riverside.” There is a definite strike-over in the “45” minutes after 5 pm.  The “informant” signature is “P.M. McManus,” noting the difference in the obituary of Emily’s survivor – “Mrs. Austin Garfield McManus.”  The cause of death is given as ”Endocorditis and Throm­bosis with gangrene [sic] of the left-foot.  Contributory (Secondary) cause, Arthritis Informans” signed by a physician whose name is difficult to decipher, dated May 27, 1914—six days after Emily’s death.


3

  The Quit Claim Deed dated May 21, 1914, the day of Emily’s death, and purportedly signed by Emily with an “X” was notarized “in my office” by Lyman Evans, then district attorney of the City of Riverside, witnessed by “Jean F. McIntyre.”  No Jean F. McIntyre is found in the City Register of that period.  Her identity to this day remains a mystery.
  Most of the property listed in the Quit Claim deed is “Syndicate” property, 540 acres in and around the McCallum Ranch in Section 15, extending from the mountain to Main Street—today’s Palm Canyon Drive; all 540 acres originally belonging to Harry by Emily, May, and Pearl’s cross-deed to him in 1898.  The Quit Claim Deed represents that Emily’s owned one hundred percent.  But Emily did not own one hundred percent.  After Harry’s death in 1901, the undivided property would be apportioned sixty-six percent to Emily, a third to Pearl, and a third to May; after May’s death in 1908, Emily’s one-third interest would pass to May’s children, but only if she died intestate.  Only Emily’s Quit Claim Deed could disinherit May’s children at this time.  If Emily had not signed the Deed, May’s heirs would have an interest in 91.8 acres in Palm Springs.
  A survey of “Syndicate” and other property found (or not found) in the Quit Claim Deed is revealing. 
  Not included in  Quit-Claim Deed:

In John Guthrie’s 1897 InventoryCross-deeded by family to Harry in 1898:
Block 22-Lots 4, 10, 11, 31; Block 25-Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 33, 32
Included in Quit-Claim Deed:
In John Guthrie’s 1897 InventoryNot cross-deeded by family to Harry in 1898
Block 18-Lot 9.  Not in John Guthrie’s Inventory: Block 22, Lot 2.
  Thus Pearl had typed into the Quit Claim Deed property found in her father’s 1897 Inventory, but not partitioned to Harry in 1898.  All of the property in Block 25, and four Lots in Block 22 was not included.  Eventually, through a series of litigations and claims, Pearl did get clear title to all of the ranch property, with the exception of Block 18, Lot 9 which although in John Guthrie’s 1897 Inventory, had not been cross-deeded by the family to Harry in 1898.
  May’s estate was petitioned for on July 15, 1914 by Wm. H. Polkinghorn to be appointed “Special Administrator” showing May’s “undivided interest in” Lots 7 and 8 in Block “B” – “separate property which she inherited from her father J.G. McCallum.”  All May’s children are listed as heirs.  Ten days later the same Polkinghorn petitioned for Emily’s estate showing her “undivided interest in” the same property – “separate which she inherited from her husband.”  Again, all heirs are listed.  On October 16, 1914, Florilla M. White and Cordelia B. White, claimed title to this property, revealing a chain of inheritance; and that Harry’s estate and property passed to his mother, Emily.
  Thus followed a series of complex litigations Pearl had to endure throughout the 1920s.  On April 16, 1920, Dr. Emmet Rixford of 1795 California Street in San Francisco wrote to Pearl:  “Let’s get together and agree on settlement.  Of course the taxes which we have kept up all these years would have to be compen­sated for.”
  By 1921, Pearl had hired Adair & Winder / Riverside.  On April 8 they wrote her concerning “all your property interests in and near Palm Springs” [emphasis added]:

Riverside Abstract Company is in possession of valuable information concerning your property 
interests which could never be secured any other way excepting through them . . . much of this information came from old records, which later were photographed and are now held by the Abstract Company; other information came from his experience [Mr. Schaffer], which one could never secure from the records.  In addition to that both Mr. Wells and Mr. Haymond have learned a great deal of information of the early days and elsewhere.  Furthermore the Riverside Abstract Company has made title searches covering Palm Springs territory for other people . . .

In the second place, I have just enough information to lead me to believe that there is a possibility that you have a record interest in lands around Palm Springs that you know nothing about and may possibly disclose land interest long since overlooked.  . . . After this has been done and we have looked over such unrecorded instruments as you may have, . . .

  On August 22, Dr. Emmet Rixford again wrote “with a view of perfecting title to property in and around Palm Springs, generally referred to as syndicate property. . . . contemplated by Mr. and Mrs. McManus:  having search made on the title of all the properties including the tax title properties, for the purpose of bring­ing suit to quiet title.  . . . we would suggest that all of the property be deeded to one individual or some Company, to be thereafter conveyed to the respective parties entitled thereto under the agreement of division . . .”
As to Lots 1 and 4 in Block 29 in Section 15, December 13, 1921, Cornelia White, the estate of James Adams, deceased, and Lois Kellogg, Pearl M. McManus was vested of record in H.C. Campbell, James Adams, J.G. McCallum and O.C. Miller, “but that their respective interests thereto are not disclosed and cannot be determined by the official records on file . . . of San Diego and Riverside Counties. . . . It is further stipulated and agreed that whatever interest in and to said property was owned by Harry F. McCallum at the time of his death, in the year 1902 [11 months off the correct date of death], vested absolutely in his mother, Emily McCallum.” [and by inference to all Emily’s heirs at the time of her death].

  Two days later, another stipulation was offered by Cornelia White and the estate of James Adams, deceased, as to Pearl’s title and interest held by the same parties, their title and interest on June 1, 1888 – close to the time of the rift between John Guthrie and his Syndicate partners; the stipulation offering vested interest of record in and to Pearl M. McManus in and to the real property of record held by J.G. McCollum[sic] on June 1, 1888.
  Harry’s estate again was brought into the picture on June 26, 1923 when Pearl asked the Security Title Insurance and Guarantee Company (affiliated with The Riverside Abstract Company), F.H. Wells, Vice President, to bring suit “. . . for the purpose OF SEGREGATING THE INTERESTS OF Mrs. McManus from the interests of any other owners holding with her undivided interests . . . followed by a hand­written accep­tance from “A.G. McManus, Pearl M. McManus by A.G. McManus, her attorney in fact.”  But the court ruled that Pearl M. McManus did not hold any “undivided interests” because the property had not been listed in the Quit Claim Deed of 1914 and Pearl’s mother didn’t have title to it.  It was in a sense “in limbo” in Harry’s estate and had not been probated.
  Almost four months passed.  In later years, the husband of May’s daughter Jane told the story that during this time “there was a frantic search for a will.”  On October 10, 1923, Pearl petitioned for probate of Harry’s estate—his Will annexed [note incorrect information here emphasized in italics]:

  Petition for Probate states that Harry died on or about the 1st day of August, 1902, in the County of Los Angeles . . . was a resident of the County of River­side . . . An undivided interest in and to certain real property in and near Palm Springs, California, the value of which at the time of death, was less than $10,000 [earlier probates of Harry’s estate had stipulated the estate had no value—the “Syndicate” property was still undivided] . . . holographic will bearing date the 23rd day of December, 1897, . . . the last will and testament of said deceased . . . That Mrs. J.G. McCallum is named in said will. . . that said Mrs. J.G. McCallum is deceased . . . heirs at law of said testator:  Pearl McManus, a sister, Marjorie Forline, Mrs. Carl Skolfield (Jane), Mrs. Bernard Plata [should be de la Plata] (Katherine), and Jack Forline, the four of whom are the children of the deceased sister of decedent (May).

  On October 31, order was issued admitting Harry’s Will to probate, Pearl McManus McCallum appointed Administratrix with the Will annexed.  In effect all of Harry’s land discovered by Pearl by title search or from the family partition of Syndicate land in 1898 now belonged to her since he had willed it to his mother in 1897!  A Bond dated October 19, 1923 was attached signed by Lyman Evans and G.E. Dole, attorneys in fact for the United States Fidelity and Guarantee Company; noting here that Lyman Evans is the notary for Emily’s Quit Claim Deed.
  On February 15, 1924 Adair & Winder wrote to A.G. McManus, Esq. in re: McManus v. Campbell, regarding Lot 9, Block 18, and Section 25:
  I have not included lot 9, Block 18, for the reason that this lot was conveyed from May to Harry [and from Emily, and Pearl] and if I should include it, it would force May’s children into the suit, and would also prevent the allegations.
  Three days later a Complaint in Partition was filed – Pearl vs. a number of Syndicate Partners regarding land as listed in J.G. McCallum’s inventory of 1897 . . . This complaint states that “said real property was held and owned in common and in co tenancy by Emily McCallum . . .”  which it was only if Harry had left a will.  Other­wise, on Harry’s death, Pearl and May would each still retain their one-sixth undi­vided interest, since Lot 9, Block 18 was not partitioned by the family to Harry.  May heirs would still own their one-six interest, plus one-half of their mother’s 2/3 interest, or one-fourth interest together with Pearl’s one-fourth interest.
  These petitions and litigations continued throughout the 1920s and into the 1930s, all of which concealed the true date of Harry’s death and May’s interest in the Syndicate property.  The question remains, would Emily knowingly consent to give Pearl property which she, Pearl and May had cross-deeded to Harry in the 1898 family partition, and in which the family had only a 27.48% interest?
  As to Lot 9, Block 18, on January 27, 1931, it was sold to Austin McManus from May’s estate, a one-sixth interest, and the same day Austin received a Quit Claim deed from Campbell & Varney (Syndicate heirs) for one hundred dollars who had purchased it on April 1, 1927 from James Adams his 5.56% interest.  May’s children each received seventy-five dollars from the sale.  And here the question is, why should not May’s children’s interest have been fifty percent since Pearl could now claim title to all of Lot 9, Block 18?  It is clear that May’s correct share of land in Palm Springs was obfuscated through the years.
  Pearl now owned most of the land that was in her father’s estate in 1897.  She had lost all stock and interest in the Palm Valley Water Company in 1906, not able to pay for maintenance of the flume and other related expenses.  The Water Company finally ended up in the hands of a Los Angeles promoter who faced the difficult task of rebuilding.  Under California law, the flume had to be repaired by a certain date or Palm Springs would lose this valuable source of water forever.  Indians and white men alike worked incessantly in terrific desert heat to finish the flume on time.  In the early 1920s Mr. P.T. Stevens and his associate, Alvah F. Hicks, acquired the Palm Valley Water Company.  John Guthrie’s open sixteen-mile flume to carry water from Whitewater River into the village was replaced with underground pipes.  Legal battles as to ownership followed, but Pearl was no longer involved.  She  was determined to go forward, not dwelling on past tragedies and contentions.

  From Palm Springs Life 1960-61 Annual Pictorial,  written by George Ringwald, reporter for Riverside County’s Daily Enterprise]:

  Today she lives in splendid solitude [Austin died in 1955] in a huge, Medi­terranean villa-like home on the slope of Mt. San Jacinto.  From the windows of the upper level, she can look out over the cottages of her Tennis Club and other buildings where once the McCallum orchards, vineyards and alfalfa fields spread across the desert.
  Tragedy is in the past for Mrs. McManus—“I’m so glad I lived to see it all come out in the sunshine,” she commented some time ago—and today her eye is on the future and—always—what it holds for Palm Springs.
  “I’m a great person not to let myself worry over what can’t be helped,” she said recently.
Then she smiled happily and added:  “Tomorrow’s my day!”