For this week’s Treasure Chest Thursday, I’m looking at two clippings from the Donna Darling Collection concerning earthquakes. The earthquake was significant enough for Donna to clip newspaper articles about the experience. As New Yorkers, I’m sure an earthquake was scary for them.
Although the clippings aren’t dated, it is clear that they refer to the October 22, 1926 earthquake off the coast at Monterey[i]. We still don’t know where she and Sammy were on October 21st or 22nd, however, we know they played in San Jose on October 23rd through the 25th. San Jose is about 50 miles to the north of Monterey. We also know they played in Southern California earlier in the month and were working their way north. It is very possible they were actually in Monterey during the earthquake.
Windows Are Rattled As Quakes ‘Jiggle’ S. F.
Several buildings were slightly-damaged, a dozen plate glass-windows smashed and hundreds of curious persons routed from hotels and homes by three quakes that rocked northern and central California early today.A preliminary survey of the quakes’ effects showed the following damage:Two windows broken in office of McDonald & Co., brokers, in Palace Hotel Building.Small piece shaken from Ferry Building.Plaster from Sharon Building shaken into Market-st.Window of Selix Clothing store, 54 Mason-st, broken.The zone affected extended from Sacramento, on the north, to towns 150 miles south of San Francisco. None, however, reported serious damage.The first temblor rocked San Francisco gently at 4:35 o’clock. Thirty seconds later there was a second gentle swaying, strong enough to rattle windows and cause electric fixtures to sway.Exactly ‘an hour later a third temblor came, lasting several seconds. Although not as pronounced as the first, this shock stopped several electric clocks.Telephone service at several local exchanges was interrupted for 10 minutes by the first temblor and the electric system at Alameda was out of service for 20 minutes.The temblors rocked San Jose, Watsonville, Salinas, Monterey, Santa Cruz and nearby towns.Salinas reported that the shocks were the most severe since 1906.The United States navy radio service said that no disturbances I at sea had been reported.Curious thousands milled around I the streets from the time of the first temblor until daylight. Several hundreds of the most nervous wandered to the Civic Center and stood in little groups. Other open spaces found favor with early risers.A wax model in the B. F. Schlesinger department store, Oakland, was the only “casualty.” The model fell from a pedestal and crashed through a window. Its head was i severed. No other windows were reported broken in Oakland.Plaster fell in many buildings in Salinas, glassware was broken and clocks were stopped.Slight damage also was reported in Paso Robles.
The second article reads:
3 Quakes Jar S.F. and Valley Area
Three distinct earthquake shocks were felt in San Francisco and Central California today.The first was at 4:36 a. m., the second at 5:36 and the third at 6:42 a. m. The second was the most severe.Damage in San Francisco and the entire affected district was negligible, being confined to broken windows, falling plaster and a few minor cracks in buildings.The ‘‘shocks were felt as far north as Napa and south to San Luis Obispo, with varying intensity.San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Palo Alto, San Mateo and Monterey reported no damage except a few cracked ceilings and windows.Electric light service in the Eastbay was affected for a time.The center of the shocks appeared to be between San Francisco and Monterey according to the Associated Press. They were o£ a northerly and southerly movement, along the old fault line of the 1906 quake.
Although quite minor in nature, I’m sure Donna and Sammy quickly exited their hotel and hoped it wouldn’t be another “big one.” The disaster of the 1906 earthquake was only 20 years earlier and a fresh memory for many in the Bay area.
I remember the concern I had when I lived in San Diego and experienced my first earthquake. Although minor, such an experience can be very unsettling for those of us from areas of the country where the ground stays put. I can imagine what went through Donna and Sammy’s minds in the early morning of 22 October 1926.
Sources
[i]October 22, 1926 – A particularly strong earthquake was felt at 4:35 a.m. and did some damage. The tremor was off the coast at Monterey. It was stronger in San Francisco than at some places closer to the epicenter. A second tremor, much like the first, was felt at 5:35 a.m.
Source: The Internet – The Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco – “San Francisco Earthquake History 1915-1989” https://www.sfmuseum.org/alm/quakes3.html
I think I have enough information to finally speculate on my half-sister’s paternity.
I’ll call each of the individuals in this study by the amount of DNA they share with my sister. There are three individuals who have trees I could use for comparison, #117, #201, and #271. Ancestry indicates that he is likely a 2nd or 3rd cousin. As such they would share a common great-grandparent or great-great-grandparent.
Dana Leeds recently had a couple posts on her blog site, “The Enthusiastic Genealogist,” about using color clustering to identify common surnames in genealogy. I thought I’d try using her technique to see if the process would shed new light onto two old problems.
Montran-Barber Line
First, my grandmother’s line, Montran and Barber. My mother tested on 23&Me and so did my mother’s half-sister, Barbara. Having half-siblings in the tree makes DNA tracking a lot easier. In my mother’s case, if a person has a DNA match with my mother and her half-sister, we know that the match comes from my mother’s paternal side. If the person matches with my mother and not her half-sister, I know that the match comes from my mother’s maternal side.
The process is pretty straight forward, enter the name, and a color for the connection using a different color if the individual is not related to the previous people. Once you have the colors determined, add if the individual has a tree available. If so, enter the surnames for that line into a chart.
I entered the individual’s name, amount of DNA shared, and blue, if there was a match with Aunt Barbara and another color is the match was not with Aunt Barbara. In my mother’s case, the first 50 matches all matched with Aunt Barbara. With no diversity I couldn’t find anyone that might potentially have Montran or Barber ancestors. So, it didn’t work for my mother.
Peterson Paternal Project
Next, I went to work on my half-sister’s paternal project. If she and I are a common match to an individual, we know that the connection is on our common mother’s side. If an individual matches Glennis and not me, I know that the match is on her unknown paternal side.
Ignoring matches with me (the Brown/Montran line), and using the Enthusiastic Genealogist’s technique showed four trees. All of which have some relationship with another.
Trees relating to Peterson Paternity Project
A review of the surnames found in the trees available showed only one surname was repeated in two trees, Hemsworth. More exciting though, I learned that, although tree 271 above, didn’t have a Hemsworth in it, my previous research found a Hemsworth one generation further back than 271’s tree showed. With three DNA matches all having Hemsworth in their trees, it is time to speculate a possible connection.
My half-sister Glennis is a DNA match on Ancestry.Com with several individuals who have common ancestors with Nathan Smith Morgan and his wife, Belinda [sometimes Malinda Odell. In the search to determine Glennis’ biological father, I am continuing to develop a tree of the descendants of Nathan and Belinda.
On the last DNA Day, 22 March 2018, I began to suspect that someone close to Viola Cline was going to be a likely candidate. I looked at a couple of Viola Cline’s grandsons and determined they were possible, but unlikely, candidates. I had quite a bit of difficulty tracing Viola’s daughters and their children. So, I thought I’d look at Viola again and see what I could learn.
I learned that Mary Corinne Huber married Roy Lee Ezzell. In the 1940 Census they still hadn’t any children. Placing them out of consideration.
I examined John Clifford Huber previously. His two sons are possible but unlikely candidates.
Genevieve married Chas (Charles?) Osborne. The 1940 Census indicates that they had 1 son who was a 1year-old so, he’s not possible.
Finally, Elenore Elizabeth married Wilmont Schlaff. They had a son (possibly living), who is not a candidate.
1. Descendants of John and Viola (Cline) Huber
#.#
Child
Notes/Comments
Status
1.
Mary Corinne Huber
Married Roy Lee Ezzell
Married [Unk] Cook
1.1
Possibly Living
Born 1944
2.
John Clifford Huber
Married Naomi Stewart
2.1.
[Possibly living]
Possible but Unlikely
2.2.
Roy L. Huber
Possible but Unlikely
3.
Genevieve Huber
Married Chas Osborne
3.1.
Possibly Living
Born 1939
Not Possible
4.
Eleanor Elizabeth Huber
Married Wilmont Schlaff
No apparent children in 1940 Census.
There don’t appear to be any likely candidates from the descendants of Viola Cline.
I also took a look at the matches Glennis has on Ancestry.Com and GEDMatch.Com. Neither had any new matches that could shed light on Glennis’ DNA connections.
As such, next I’ll investigate the descendants of her four siblings.
Fotilla Cline – born 1873/4.
Amos C Cline – born 1875
Forest Cline – born 1877/8
Rufus Cline – born 1879.
Note – My Criteria:
“Candidates” are males born between 1925 and 1935.
“Not considered” are females who are unlikely to have had a male child between 1925 and 1935.
“Not a Candidate” are males born between 1915 and 1925 as being too young to have had a son between 1925 and 1935 and too old to be a candidate.
“Possible but unlikely” are males born between 1925 and 1935, but are not named Paul or Phil, which are the likely names of Glennis’ biological father, or otherwise don’t appear to fit the likely candidate who would have been in Minnesota or Michigan in 1953. I will revisit these possibilities later of this project fails to find a potential candidate.
Tracing female ancestors is often difficult in 19th century America. As I continue my research into the siblings of Rufus Holton Darling, one of his sisters, the oldest sister, was quite easy to follow. The other two sisters have been very problematic. I wrote about Deidamia, the oldest sister, previously. Basically, she born in New York, married Lawrence G. Limbocker, moved to Michigan, had three children, and probably died in Michigan. Hannah and Sally Ann are a different story.
Hannah was born the 7th of eight children of Abner and Sally Ann (Munsell) Darling, most likely in New Hampshire, although she may have been born in New York.
The only real source I have regarding Hannah is the 1850 Census[1]. In it, she appears to be living with her brother, Andrew/Andress Darling, his wife Antoinette and their two children, Sarah and Alice. In the same household appears to be Hannah’s youngest brother, Franklin, and her mother, Sally A. (Munsell) Darling.
The 1830 Census[2] does not provide the names of anyone in the household except for the head of household. The 1830 Census indicates the following females in the Abner Darling household of Clarkson, Monroe, New York:
Females 5 thru 9 2 (Probably Hannah, age 6, and Sally Ann, age 9.)
Females 15 thru 19 1 (Probably Diedamia, Age 16.)
Females 40 to 49 1 (Probably Sally, age 45.)
Hannah’s father, Abner died in 1839. In the 1840 Census[3], Abner’s son, Rufus, is the head of the household. Living with Rufus in 1840 are the following females:
Females 15-19 2 (Probably Hannah, age 16, and Sally Ann, age 19.)
Females 50-59 1 (Probably Sally, age 55.)
I have been unsuccessful finding any references to Hannah after the 1850 Census. She is not mentioned in her brother’s (Abner C. Darling’s) obituary in September 1880. As such, I believe Hannah probably died between 1850 and 1880.
Other Trees
Family Search has Hannah in their Family Tree. She is person KJ6Z-V1S. All entries for her are by “Family Search” and have no sources for information. It does suggest an 1820 birth year.
On Ancestry, there are five trees that appear to include Hannah. Two of them are mine. The other three are private. I have sent contact messages to the two individuals managing the three private trees. One tree indicates Hannah Darling being born in 1820. I’ve selected the 1824-1825 birth year in my tree because of the 1850 Census and that she fits into the 1830 and 1840 censuses by speculation. I would be a lot more comfortable that Hannah was actually a child of Abner and Sally Ann (Munsell) Darling if I could find a record that clearly shows the relationship.
The second private tree on Ancestry did not have Hannah identified but did have Abner and Sally Ann (Munsell) Darling but none of their children.
I have not heard back about the third private tree yet.
A fairly exhaustive online search, including newspapers and other resources has not provided any further information.
[1] 1850 Census (FS), 1850 Census – A M Darling – Utica, Winnebago, Wisconsin. “United States Census, 1850,” database with images, FamilySearch : 12 April 2016), Am Darling, Utica, Winnebago, Wisconsin, United States; citing family 1092, NARA microfilm publication M432 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M4DT-3L6.
[2] 1830 Census (A), Abner Darling – Clarkson, Monroe, New York – Page 271. Source Citation 1830; Census Place: Clarkson, Monroe, New York; Series: M19; Roll: 94; Page: 271; Family History Library Film: 0017154. https://search.ancestry.com/collections/8058/records/1556647/.
[3] 1840 Census (FS), Family Search, New York, Monroe, Clarkson, Page 177 – Rufus H Darling.
Several buildings were slightly-damaged, a dozen plate glass-windows smashed and hundreds of curious persons routed from hotels and homes by three quakes that rocked northern and central California early today. A preliminary survey of the quakes’ effects showed the following damage: Two windows broken in office of McDonald & Co., brokers, in Palace Hotel Building. Small piece shaken from Ferry Building. Plaster from Sharon Building shaken into Market-st. Window of Selix Clothing store, 54 Mason-st, broken. The zone affected extended from Sacramento, on the north, to towns 150 miles south of San Francisco. None, however, reported serious damage. The first temblor rocked San Francisco gently at 4:35 o’clock. Thirty seconds later there was a second gentle swaying, strong enough to rattle windows and cause electric fixtures to sway. Exactly ‘an hour later a third temblor came, lasting several seconds. Although not as pronounced as the first, this shock stopped several electric clocks. Telephone service at several local exchanges was interrupted for 10 minutes by the first temblor and the electric system at Alameda was out of service for 20 minutes. The temblors rocked San Jose, Watsonville, Salinas, Monterey, Santa Cruz and nearby towns. Salinas reported that the shocks were the most severe since 1906. The United States navy radio service said that no disturbances I at sea had been reported. Curious thousands milled around I the streets from the time of the first temblor until daylight. Several hundreds of the most nervous wandered to the Civic Center and stood in little groups. Other open spaces found favor with early risers. A wax model in the B. F. Schlesinger department store, Oakland, was the only “casualty.” The model fell from a pedestal and crashed through a window. Its head was i severed. No other windows were reported broken in Oakland. Plaster fell in many buildings in Salinas, glassware was broken and clocks were stopped. Slight damage also was reported in Paso Robles.
