USA > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco > History of the San Francisco Committee of vigilance of 1851 : a study of social control on the California frontier in the days of the gold rush > Part 16
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
45 See Annals, 326.
46 Herald, 1851, May 17 33.
47 See note on his resignation, infra, p. 303.
48 See Papers, 332, 336, 349, also infra, p. 402.
178
Vigilance Committee of 1851
was refused.49 An indignation meeting was promptly held on the Plaza. Samuel Brannan presided and W. T. Coleman was one of the vice-presidents. Resolutions were passed condemning Judge Parsons' action, and a committee was appointed to pro- cure his impeachment before the state legislature. Walker's case was immediately carried to the Superior Court on a writ of habeas corpus, and the prisoner was discharged. The effort to impeach Parsons was given up on the ground of insufficient evidence.30
While discussing the personnel of the San Francisco bench in 1851, it is relevant to notice a serious handicap laid upon the lower court. The statutes of 1850 charged the county at- torney with the duty of conducting criminal prosecutions before justices' courts, as well as in the County Court.51 That office was abolished in 1851, and the duties of the county attorney were transferred to the district attorney, who was charged with conducting prosecutions before lower magistrates when he was "not in attendance upon the District Court or Court of Ses- sions.">" This change imposed so many duties upon the district attorney of San Franciseo that he entirely neglected any at- tendance on the recorder's court, which now exercised the larger powers given to lower magistrates by the revised statutes of 1851. The city recorder, obliged to act both as prosecuting at- torney and as judge, petitioned in vain for a special proseenting officer, since the common council had no power to create such an office.53 This condition placed criminals who employed able lawyers in a position of great advantage. Although repeated complaint was made against it,34 an appointment noted in the
49 See Annals, 322-324; Herald, 1851, March 4; 10; 15.
50 First California Reports (aunotated ed.), 539-555.
51 California, Statutes, 1850, chap. 39, p. 112, sec. 5.
52 California, Statutes, 1851, chap. 21, p. 188. sec. 6. 53 Alta, 1851, Nov. 27 34.
54 See Herald, 1852, March 22 35. The district attorney sometimes appeared, but was usually too busy.
179
The Prelude to the Committee of Vigilance
Alta California of April 5, 1856, seems to be the first special assignment of a prosecuting attorney to the lowest court.55
On May 4, 1851, San Francisco was devastated by a fifth great fire, which consumed more than three-quarters of the city and entailed a loss of several lives and of ten or twelve million dollars.56 This was by far the worst calamity that had yet over- taken the community. It occurred on the anniversary of the fire of May 4, 1850, and in the excited public imagination it was generally believed that both were the work of incendiaries- a belief strengthened by the discovery of about $10,000 worth of booty in houses occupied by the Sydney immigrants.57
During the next four weeks San Francisco again justified the symbol of the phoenix upon the city seal. Before the ruins had cooled rebuilding was under way. Within ten days nearly three hundred and fifty new structures were completed and occupied.58 Men worked with indomitable energy to restore what had been destroyed, and with growing determination to protect the fruit of their toil from the outlaws whose plots had so often resulted in arson and death. The belief in the existence of a gang determined to burn the city for the purpose of plunder created an atmosphere of extreme nervous tension that especially affected the citizens of large financial interests. The pioneer merchants of San Francisco were cool of head and quick of hand, not afraid to carry their lives in their own keeping, although disinclined to seek trouble in the resorts of crime and violence. But single-handed courage was powerless to save either
55 A prosecuting attorney for the mayor's court had then been appointed.
56 See Annals, 329-333, 604-610; Bancroft, California, VI, 204-206; Popular Tribunals, I, 74. Interesting recollections of the catastrophe were given by Schenk, MS Statement, 44-45; and by Alfred Wheeler, "Oration," in Society of California Pioneers, Thirty-second Anniversary (1882), 19-23.
57 The fire was attributed to accident rather than to arson in Parker's Directory, 1852, p. 19.
58 Herald, 1851, May 15 33. The slogan of the city was said to be: "Go ahead, Young California! Who, the hell, cares for a fire!" (Gerstäcker, Gold ein Californisches Lebensbild, p. 111).
:
1
180
Vigilance Committee of 1851
life or fortune from the destruction of these recurrent fires, and the public officials were either unable or unwilling to ferret out the ineendiaries.
On May 17 a movement was started to supplement the inade- quate police force by organizing a volunteer night patrol.59 Resi- dents of the Fifth and Seventh wards met at the California Engine House and formed an association which was duplicated, later, in the Third ward. The effort received not only the ap- proval of the press but the sanction of the authorities. The patrol was authorized by a city ordinance, the mayor swore the volunteer police into office, and the city marshal assumed the direction of their work.60 Speaking of this organization Schenck said :61
Capt. F. W. Macondray was at the head of it, aud there were about a hundred members. The members were assigned to different districts, and were on duty about eight hours. I was out four times per month iu this way. This was a regular police organization, with proper officers, established by ourselves for our protection, and the members were ex- pected to and did personally perform the duties required and not delegate them to any one else. This may be said to be the origin of the Vigilance Committee of 1851. The attack on Jansen and other outrages which had become so numerous as to excite the indignation of the people, together with the laxity of the laws and the difficulty of keeping witnesses here to give their evidence in cases brought to trial, led to the organization of this patrol, and ultimately to the formation of the Committee of Vigilance, which took place about the tenth of June, 1851. About a dozen members of the patrol casually met in the neighborhood of Macon- dray's building, about the middle of the day, and after some discussion, resolved themselves into a Committee of Vigilance, and procured Bran- nan's building to hold meetings in.
The last clause in Schenck's statement is not exactly substan- tiated by other accounts, but it indicates one of the influences which led to the formation of the Committee of Vigilance. Lists
59 Alta, 1851, May 19 33 ; 20 23 ; 21 %; 28 2%.
60 See ordinance of May 26, 1851 (Manual of San Francisco, 1852, p. 49). Bancroft placed the organization of the patrol in February (Popular Tribunals, I, 205).
61 Schenck, MS Statement, 34-35.
181
The Prelude to the Committee of Vigilance
of the officers of the patrol were printed in the Herald. Of the thirty-four named, fourteen became members of the Committee, although they were not conspicuous in starting the movement.62 Occasional paragraphs in the papers suggested a decrease of violence after the demonstration of popular temper over the Jansen affair, and particularly after the formation of the vol- unteer patrol. Nevertheless, a long list of crimes can be com- piled from the news items, and the more terrifying menace of arson oppressed the popular imagination with increasing appre- hension.63
The cry of "Fire!" startled the town again on the night of the second of June. It proved to be but a small blaze, easily extinguished before it spread beyond a single room in a lodging house on Long Wharf. A smouldering heap of oil-soaked bed- ding seemed to incriminate the occupant, Benjamin Lewis, and he was arrested not far from the building and arraigned before the recorder. While the hearing was in progress hundreds of spectators thronged the court room and the street outside and
62 Herald, 1851, June 10 3/1. In view of Schenck's statement it is inter- esting to record the names of future Vigilantes who served as officers of patrols, and to note their membership number in the Committee.
Third ward Fifth and Seventh wards
James Murray, No. 345, G. M. Garwood, No. 46,
J. C. Hasson, No. 229,
W. C. Graham, No. 152,
J. F. Curtis, No. 31,
C. L. Case, No. 161,
J. E. Dall, No. 80,
Capt. E. Gorham, No. 3,
P. Markey, No. 393,
R. S. Lammot, No. 49,
Thomas MeCahill, No. 90,
Frank Mahony, No. 6,
W. F. Martin, No. 417,
William Browne, No. 23.
P. W. Van Winkle, No. 554.
63 An editorial in the Herald of June 4 reported a decided improvement, but the Courier of the next day lamented that there was no apparent decrease in crime. The Herald, July 4 3%, gave a summary, showing that from April 30, 1850, to May 23, 1851, some 184 prisoners had been com- mitted for trial before the District Court. Of these 68 had been dis- charged, 21 had escaped, 6 had died, 2 received pardons, and 9 were still in custody. Of the remaining 78, 40 had probably forfeited bail, and the rest were unaccounted for, although over 20 had been convicted and sen- tenced. For crimes of this period, see Popular Tribunals, I, 139, 162, 201-204.
182
Vigilance Committee of 1851
heard with growing excitement evidence that warranted holding the prisoner for trial before a higher court.
The rush of an engine responding to an alarm of fire nearly precipitated a riot late in the afternoon of the trial. When some one raised the cry that the prisoner's friends were creating a diversion in order to effect a rescue, the crowd began to elamor for immediate execution. Colonel Stevenson, owner of the house Lewis had fired, made a speech in which he urged all law-loving citizens to take into their own hands the administration of justice, since the authorities afforded no protection either for life or for property. Mayor Brenham and others succeeded in restoring order only when the people were convinced that Lewis had been removed from the building and placed in security beyond their reach. The papers of June 4 recounted the affair in detail. Their spirit is indicated by the following extract from an edi- torial in the Herald:
Although strongly opposed, as must be every lover of fair play, to the summary execution of even such a character as Lewis, without a patient and impartial trial-we yet must declare that we regard the demonstration of yesterday with the highest gratification; and we trust. that, if the man be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed the crime, the citizens will supply any deficiency that may exist in the law. We say this, fully alive to the expectation that we shall therefore be accused of advocating Lynch-law. If this man be guilty of setting fire to the house on Long Wharf, and if the law do not adjudge him the penalty of death therefor, we do most unquestionably advocate Lynch- law.
Lewis was indicted by the grand jury on June 5, but Judge Parsons had the indictment quashed on the ground that the new judiciary act, effective May 1, eliminated May terms for the grand jury and for the District Court. The grand jury which had acted in the case of Lewis had been called on May 26 by a substitute, Judge Robinson, during Parsons' temporary absence from the bench. Parsons discharged it as being without
183
The Prelude to the Committee of Vigilance
standing in the eyes of the law.64 The prisoner was kept in custody to await the July term, when he was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, the heaviest penalty allowed for arson by the statutes in force at the time he committed the crime.63
Schenck said of the Lewis affair :66
This was one of the transactions which led immediately to the organ- ization of the Vigilance Committee ont of the volunteer patrol, their motive being to secure the conviction of Lewis. The first watchword of the Committee was "Lewis." It was afterwards changed, partly owing to the fact that Rube Maloney got into the Committee, and he was not wanted there.
Schenck's statement is particularly valuable because it ex- plains the presence among the papers of the Vigilance Committee of a document entitled "The People vs. Benjamin Lewis; Copy of Testimony before the Recorder."67 This is somewhat fuller than the reports which appeared in the newspapers, and it is evident that some one who was afterward connected with the Committee was at pains to secure a complete transcript of the record, perhaps in anticipation of the trial before the higher court. The case of Lewis thus occupies the opening pages of the Papers of the Committee, and it happens that a singularly vivid series of San Francisco pictures are given in the crisp, disjointed sentences which were caught by the recorder's clerk while the mob in the noisy street shouted for summary execution.
The same conditions that existed in San Francisco prevailed in lesser or greater degree in all the interior towns, and were arousing public efforts to combat organized crime. The residents
64 Herald, 1851, June 10 %; 12 %.
65 Herald, 1851, July 4 %; 23 %; 30 %.
66 Sehenek, MS Statement, 51. He said that Lewis escaped, and was later connected with the murder of a Dr. Burdell in New York, and was also convicted of a murder in New Jersey. The incident of the watchword is considered, infra, p. 209.
67 Papers, 4-14.
184
Vigilance Committee of 1851
of Coloma gathered in mass meeting in the spring to devise some method to "ferret out and bring to punishment the villains who lurk about Sacramento city and who it seems have lately as- saulted some citizens of Coloma."68 A little later the men of Sacramento made a vigorous protest against the crime that was rampant in their city.69 Just at the time of the excitement in San Franeiseo over the case of Lewis the people about Stockton were roused by the depredations of a band of horse thieves. Five of these were finally. captured. One of them turned state's evi- dence, and disclosed concerted operations of very wide extent. His confession attracted much attention, and the papers began to advocate the formation of popular committees for the defense of society. In the San Francisco Herald of June 5 the editor recommended that a vessel should be chartered to deport all the criminals known to the police.70 The Stockton Journal went to greater extremes and demanded that the people should appoint a commission and proclaim martial law.71
The idea of a protective association was taking definite shape in many minds. On June 8 the Alta published a letter which outlined a general plan of organization. The writer proposed that a "committee of safety" should be established to prevent the landing of convicts from Sydney, and that each ward in San Francisco should have a "committee of vigilance" to hunt down criminals and warn them to keep out of the city.72 This communication was signed by "Justice," and Professor Royce identified the author as R. S. Watson, one of the first members of the Committee of Vigilance.73 The California Courier of
68 Alta, 1851, April 1 33. 69 Alta, 1851, April 16 %.
70 See infra, p. 454.
71 See infra, p. 455.
72 See infra, p. 456.
73 Royce, California, 418.
185
The Prelude to the Committee of Vigilance
June 10 printed another long article urging similar action on the ground that society was in a condition of revolution.74
The excitement attending the trial of Lewis, the disclosures at Stockton which confirmed the impressions of a widespread organization of the criminal element, and the publication of such editorials as those just quoted combined during several successive days to emphasize the imperative need of some new movement that should attempt the suppression of crime.
The effort to meet that need resulted in the formation of the Committee of Vigilance.
74 See infra, p. 456.
-- --
CHAPTER IX THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF VIGILANCE
It has been the purpose of the preceding study of California to show the local problems and the local attitude of mind so elearly that the reader can understand, without further elabor- ation, why the citizens of San Francisco instinetively adopted some form of popular association when they believed that their lives and their property were at the mercy of a eriminal organ- ization. Whatever may be his interest in their work, his criticism of the motives that influenced them, or his judgment of the results they accomplished, his personal estimate of the Committee of Vigilance of 1851 must be grounded upon a realization of the historie fact that the men of California had obtained national citizenship through resolute self-determination, through auda- cious self-organization, and through vehement self-assertion within the halls of Congress. Determination, audacity, and self- assertion also obtained for them a representative state govern- ment and statute law, although they did not insure them against the consequences of haste and inexperience, nor protect them from political demoralization. The precedents set in the days of self-protection and self-organization long persisted as vital influences in the local consciousness and irresistibly directed the men of 1851 towards a protective emergency association.
The call for such an organization was widespread and in- sistent. The formation of a committee of safety or of a eitizens' commission had been advocated in Stockton by the Journal and in San Francisco by the Herald and the Alta; it did not origi- nate, as is sometimes presumed, in the imagination of hot-headed
187
The Organization of the Committee of Vigilance
extremists who cowed the law-abiding community into temporary subjection. Extremists there were among the Vigilantes, but as we study the records of their work we shall see that passion and violence were restrained to a surprising extent.
The full list of members is printed in Part I of the Papers of the Committee, and is reprinted, with tables of officers, in the Appendix to Part III. The Index to the latter volume gives a guide to the activities of each one, but as no biographical data are included with the documents it seems necessary that this nar- rative should show the reader what sort of men the Vigilantes were, and what influence they exerted on the community, both before and after their connection with the Committee of Vigil- ance. It would be interesting to trace the previous life and the California experiences of all the 707 members, but such an enormous task has not even been attempted.
About one in ten of the entire membership have left bio- graphical records that are easily accessible. Even that list is too long to be incorporated in this chapter, and only about a dozen whose names will constantly appear in the narrative of the Committee will be introduced to the reader at this point. Notices of many others will be found in the Biographical Ap- pendix. None of these brief notes is an original contribution to the history of California, for they have been collected from newspapers and books already in print, without further verifica- tion by the present writer.
The roll of the Society of California Pioneers shows that more than a fourth of the committeemen reached the state prior to 1850. Indeed that society was organized, in 1850, largely by men who joined the Committee of Vigilance in 1851. A dozen future Vigilantes were among its earliest officers, and seven served as presidents in the course of subsequent years.1
1 See Annals, 283-284. The first officers included W. D. M. Howard, president, J. R. Snyder and Samuel Brannan, vice-presidents, J. C. L. Wadsworth and A. J. Grayson, assistant secretaries, and J. C. Ward, Wil-
188
Vigilance Committee of 1851
It is not unlikely that many other members of the Committee arrived during the early months of the gold excitement, and were thoroughly imbued with the traditions and precedents of mining life. A number had already stamped their personality upon the community. Their names have already been mentioned in dis- cussing the history of the state in 1847, the San Francisco town councils of 1848, 1849, and 1850, the movement for state organ- ization, the suppression of the Hounds, and the trial of Jansen's assailants. They constantly reappeared in connection with com- mercial and political affairs of more or less importance.2
The members of the Committee are often characterized as the "leading merchants of San Francisco." In 1851 about a score of them were reckoned among the wealthy men of the city, and others made comfortable or conspicuous fortunes in later years.3 The majority, however, were clerks or small tradesmen, and are unknown to posterity except as sons and grandsons carry
liam Blackburn, J. D. Stevenson, Robert Wells, J. M. Huxley, Henry Gerke, R. A. Parker, directors. The list of later presidents included Brannan, Snyder, P. A. Roach, Dr. H. M. Gray, O. P. Sutton, and A. M. Ebbets (San Francisco Call, 1890, Sept. S. p. 3).
2 In July, 1848, W. D. M. Howard, C. V. Gillespie and J. C. Ward were appointed by a San Francisco mass meeting to petition Governor Mason to adjust important questions connected with the currency (Bancroft, Califor- nia, VI, 268 note).
Future Vigilantes formed more than one-third of the signers of au early call for a Chamber of Commerce (Alta, 1849, Nov. 1 1/1). The same merchants signed formal congratulations to the new collector of the port a few days later (Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doc. 17, pp. 28-29). J. L. Van Bokkelen, A. J. Ellis and G. M. Garwood were members of the Whig Convention, May 26, 1851 ( Alta, May 27 2%).
3 Contemporary ratings of the following members were given in A Pile, 1851, which listed some 600 wealthy Californians:
Felix Argenti
$500,000
James King of Wm. $125,000
Samuel Brannan
275,000
Charles Minturn 100,000
C. H. Brinley
15,000
John Middleton 50,000
T. K. Battelle
10,000
A. B. Stout 20,000
A. J. Ellis
50,000
J. D. Stevenson 350,000
C. V. Gillespie
225,000
H. F. Teschemaeher 50,000
Samnel Haight 75,000
J. T. [J?] Vioget 50,000
J. B. Hnie
10,000
Ferdinand Vassault 60,000
W. D. M. Howard
375,000
J. C. L. Wadsworth 20,000
E. A. King
10,000
189
The Organization of the Committee of Vigilance
on their names, or as the rolls of pioneer societies and brief obituary notices record their life and death.
It is probable that today no more than three men are gen- erally remembered as leaders in the Committee of 1851 : Samuel Brannan, the first president, Isaac Bluxome, Jr., the secretary, and William T. Coleman. Of these Bluxome is more widely known as "33, Secretary." his official designation in the Com- mittee of 1856, and Coleman, as president of that larger body. Brannan, therefore, has been accepted as the standard-bearer of the Committee of 1851, and since he was also a most notorious hot-head it is not surprising that his personal qualities have been embodied as the ruling spirit of the association.
Sam Brannan had been making history ever since July 31, 1846, when he landed in Yerba Buena at the head of his colony of Mormons." He is said to have. preached the first English sermon heard in the streets of the town, to have performed the first non-Catholic marriage ceremony, and to have been defend- ant at the first jury trial. He established the first San Francisco newspaper, the California Star, advocated the first public school,5 built the first flour mill, and made the first public announcement of the discovery of gold. He conducted a store at Sutter's Fort in 1847 and 1848, and engaged in land speculation at Sacra- mento, so that his name appears on many occasions in the annals of that neighborhood. He offered the first resolution against slavery at the Sacramento meeting which selected delegates to
4 Brannan was born in Saco, Maine, in 1819, was a printer by trade, and became a Mormon in 1842. His career is discussed in Bancroft, California, II, 728; Popular Tribunals, especially II, 115-117; Annals, 748-753; O. T. Shuck, Representative and Leading Men of the Pacific, 1870, pp. 455-459, portrait ; Davis, Sixty Years, 507; Burnett, Recollections, 298, 410; Brown, Reminiscences, [29]; Swasey, Early Days, 202-208; Eldredge, California, III, 118, portrait; Eldredge, San Francisco, II, 709-711; Ryckman, MS Statement, 4; San Francisco Call, 1890, Sept. 8 33. He received one vote for the Democratic nomination for governor in 1851, and as a presidential elector he cast his ballot for Lincoln and Johnson in 1864 (Davis, Political Conventions, 11, 210, 212).
5 California Star, 1848, Feb. 5 3/1.
190
Vigilance Committee of 1851
the constitutional convention proposed for March, 1849. He was a conspicuous leader in the trial of the San Francisco Hounds, and was elected to the ayuntamiento in the following August. He was also an advocate of the summary execution of Berdue and Windred when they were falsely accused of the attack on Jansen. The Committee of Vigilance was organized in his office, he was its second member and its first president, and appeared as its first spokesman before the San Francisco public. Much of the immediate success of the Committee was dne to his fearless initiative and to his command over the temper of the general public, but his tendencies leaned too often to- wards summary punishment and his impetuous nature soon created intense friction that ultimately cansed his resignation. Subsequent years found him still a leader in countless directions, always loyal in his support of the Union during the Civil War, and in local affairs active in promoting agriculture, in estab- lishing banks, in organizing railway, telegraph, express, and in- surance companies, in cooperating with literary and artistic movements, and in contributing to philanthropic efforts and the private relief of needy individuals. Misfortune overtook him in later life; his brilliant personality was clonded by dissipation. his wealth melted away, his position was lost, and he died in poverty and obscurity, in Escondido, San Diego County, May 5, 1889.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.