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 20
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
53 " After the hanging of Jenkins, we had the room open day and night for the admission of members. Every man was called by his number, and admitted to the meetings by his number, the Sergeant at arms identifying him at the door. It was a good deal like a Free Mason's Lodge. At special times, when occasion required, a password was used. If the sergeant at arms was off duty at any time, the door keeper, if he did not recognize a man by his number when he came to the door, would ask his name also, and refer to his book" (Ryckman, MS Statement, 3). Mr. William M. Johnson, a member of the Committee of 1856, informed me that in that body the members were pledged never to call each other by name while inside head- quarters. No such rule was enforced in 1851, for many names are attached to reports and orders and embodied in the minutes. Bluxome sometimes signed published notices as "67, Secretary," but the full names of president and secretary were occasionally appended to such papers.
226
Vigilance Committee of 1851
with their subordination to the orders of the Exeentive and the General committees, and which provided that sneh orders were to be issued in writing, and returned, after fulfillment, endorsed with the report of the official who had exeeuted them.5+ On July 23 the by-laws were adopted by the General Committee and several other important resolutions were also passed. One of these imposed obedience, as in a military company, to the orders of the chief of police; another required that all motions should be presented in writing, and should be signed by the number of the member who proposed them; wrangling and boisterous dis- putes were forbidden "after the hour of eleven P.M.," under the pain of fine, and the use of liquor in the Committee rooms was absolutely prohibited.55
54 See Papers, 340-343, and infra, p. 278.
55 See Papers, 339-343, 397. Some resolutions were disregarded; com- paratively few motions were presented in writing, if one can judge from the archives, and military discipline was not enforced (Smiley, MS State- ment, 5). The use of intoxicants will be considered infra, p. 367.
CHAPTER XI THE RECORDS FOR JUNE
The activities of the Committee of Vigilance may conveniently be grouped in three periods.
First: From the hanging of Jenkins on June 11 to the arrest of James Stuart on July 1, an interval devoted to the investiga- tion and apprehension of various suspicious characters who were unrelated to each other except as they were common members of the criminal community.
Second: From July 1 to September 16, a term which was occupied with events that developed as a result of Stuart's arrest. These included the identification of the prisoner as the assailant of Jansen, the murderer of Charles Moore, and the leader of a closely associated group of dangerous criminals ; Stuart's betrayal of his confederates in the course of a long and important con- fession, his execution, the capture of many of his companions, their trials, the execution of Whittaker and Mckenzie by the Committee, the deportation of others, and the trial and imprison- ment of several more by due process of law. During this time several of the Committee interested themselves in campaigning for the election of September 3, and secured results that promised improvement in the administration of local affairs.
Third: From the reorganization of the Committee on a less strenuous basis, September 17, 1851, to the final cessation of its activities, sometime subsequent to January, 1853.
Such a grouping affords a chronological framework into which may be fitted the hundreds of separate documents in the archives of the Committee. The succeeding chapters have been based upon it, and their construction has further been dictated by an
228
Vigilance Committee of 1851
effort to present the more important episodes of the Committee's existence in appropriate perspective, then to collect minor and picturesque incidents and to discuss certain special problems in such a way that they may supplement but not confuse the main course of the story.
The constitution of the Committee of Vigilance was adopted on the ninth of June; Jenkins was hanged on the eleventh, and by the fourteenth the Committee was deep in systematic and efficient work.
It must be remembered that its members felt that the safety of the community was threatened by an organized band of eriminals, while the presence in the state of large numbers of ex-convicts from the British penal colonies provided a fertile field for the recruiting of just such a company of outlaws as was pietured by the popular imagination. It was against the Aus- tralian suspeets. therefore, that the Committee exerted its earliest and most strennous efforts, and it is apparent that the survey of criminal resorts proposed in the Atta of June 8 was adopted from the start as the step of primary necessity. This is indi- eated by a paper dated June 14, the first report preserved in the files. These rough notes of J. L. Van Bokkelen, the chief of patrol, give a key to the methods that accomplished rapid and effective results. The committeemen did not wait for other thieves to be apprehended with their spoils, nor for complaints to be lodged against suspected offenders: with methodieal dili- gence they divided the city into distriets, and inspected one by one the houses of questionable reputation. The report of the fourteenth recommended that eleven such houses should be watched for further information, and subsequent papers show that the suggestion was followed with such thoroughness that a mass of ineriminating evidence was accumulated against five of the proprietors mentioned.1
1 See Papers, 27-28, and Index under cases of Henry Beck, Thomas Burns, James Hetherington, Crockstein and Ward, John Morris Morgan.
229
The Records for June
One suspect was Thomas Burns, from Van Diemen's Land. He had been for a time host of the lodging house which, under the successive titles of the Uncle Sam and the Shipman's Arms, had been kept by Jenkins and sold to Mr. and Mrs. Connolly shortly before Mr. Connolly's mysterious death. A shadow still hung over the place and over the widow, who had comforted herself too promptly with the attentions of the unfortunate Jenkins, and again, after a second bereavement, had found another pro- tector-a man known as "Jim" Burns, although in some places he seems to be identified with Thomas, who for a time took charge of her bar, but later moved to McManus' Welcome, on North Beach. His house was known to the authorities as one of the . worst resorts of the Sydney thieves, and he had been heavily fined for keeping it open after midnight.2
Burns and another innkeeper, named James Hetherington, were considered especially dangerous residents and the secretary of the Committee was instructed to send them notices to leave town within five days. There is no copy of the communication, but the Herald of June 18 stated that Hetherington had appealed to the authorities for protection, exhibiting a letter which read somewhat as follows :
You are hereby warned to leave this city within five days.
By order of the Committee of Vigilance.
Here was a second warning issued to criminals by the Vigilance Committee; thieves should beware of the rope (vide Jenkins, deceased !) and the furtive abettors of crime should also expect punishment if they lingered within the city. Although the Herald had already urged the "Committee of Public Safety" to command the criminal element to leave the state under penalty of severe punishment,3 no one could anticipate how such orders would be received. Some of the Committee had grave scruples
2 Alta, 1851, June 10 33.
3 Herald, 1851, June 12 %.
230
Vigilance Committee of 1851
as to the wisdom of enforcing them at the risk of doing per- sonal injury to men against whom there were no charges for overt acts of violence. It was therefore decided that Burns, who had requested an opportunity to prove his innocence, should be allowed to appear in his own behalf. and that the same privilege . should be offered to Hetherington, who had made no response to the notice.4
Burns came to headquarters, made a long, defensive state- ment, and called several witnesses to support him. The Com- mittee, however. was dissatisfied with the testimony presented and continued his case, but further investigation failed to clear his reputation.5
Hetherington responded to the notice by seeking protection from the city recorder, and the Committee voted to place him under guard until he could be shipped back to the British colonies." It was stated in the papers that two or three hundred Vigilantes marched in a body to North Beach, surrounded the house of the offender and carried him off to their headquarters, "despite his remonstrances and blister." The report added that it seemed probable that such prompt and efficient action would have its effect upon others who had received orders to depart, and would induce them to give ready obedience to their instructions.7
Once in the hands of the Committee. Hetherington made a statement in which he asserted that he was an American by birth, but had moved to Liverpool in childhood; that he had gone to Australia when he was thirty years of age, and had returned to the United States from Sydney with fellow-passengers who would vouch for his honesty. Several of these were called in his defense,8 but in the end the Committee decided that both Hether- ington and Burns sheltered thieves and incendiaries, and that the safety of the city demanded their deportation.
4 Papers, 41, 43-44. 7 Herald, 1851, June 21 %.
5 Papers, 45-59, 66-68.
6 Papers, 59.
8 Papers, 66-73.
231
The Records for June
While the two landlords were under investigation, other questionable characters were called upon to account for their past lives and associates. George Hopkins, from Hobart Town, may or may not have been an ex-convict, but his mode of life was undoubtedly suspicious. After various examinations a com- mittee of eleven recommended his banishment on the ground that he was a "dangerous man." Their report is printed in facsimile in the documents. It is an interesting example of a case in which all the members of the subcommittee assumed responsibility for their action by attaching their signatures to the recommendations they submitted.9
Thomas Scott, a tailor, had crossed the Pacific in the same vessel with Hetherington, and had been in irons en route for theft, and assault upon the captain. There was also a rumor that in San Francisco he had poisoned a man named Russel.10 When examined by the Committee he assumed an air of great innocence, protested that he did not even know the location of North Beach, and was not acquainted with the ill-reputed Iletherington. The evidence is briefly annotated: "Here the two men were intro- duced to each other, and Mr. Scott finds he knows Mr. Hether- ington." That acquaintance was destined to ripen upon another sea trip, undertaken at the command of the Committee of Vigilance, which finally decided to send all four of these objec- tionable aliens back to Australia. There may have been un- recorded information that established their guilt beyond ques- tion. The testimony in the documents proved little more than a close alliance between the prisoners and well-known members of the convict fraternity, and would not have carried conviction in any court of law.
The business interests of Hetherington and Scott were liqui- dated while they were in confinement, some of their personal effects were sold, and before they left the country they signed
9 Papers, 130.
10 Papers, 73.
232
Vigilance Committee of 1851
receipts for the proceeds, which in each case exceeded two hundred dollars.11 The undesirable quartette were probably deported on the Crescent City which sailed for Lanneeston on July 2.
Several other suspicious characters from Australia received the attention of the Committee during June. In this connection it is interesting to see how many permanent relationships had originated during the trans-Pacific voyage. For example, after a single trip of the Orator some thirty or more of her one hun- dred and fifty passengers maintained a loose association of un- savory fellowship.12
When commenting upon the notices of banishment sent to Burns and Hetherington, the San Francisco Herald, June 18. acknowledged the danger of such a weapon in unscrupulous hands. but expresed the belief that the Committee might be trusted to exercise caution and honesty in issuing its decrees. On July 1 the paper said that some one was trying to create prejudice against the Committee by mailing, in its name, to men of unblemished reputation forged letters requiring them to leave town. The paper also made the positive statement that the Com- mittee never dispatched notices of this kind by post, but always served them by the hands of a subcommittee of three. The Pacific Star of the same date aserted that only two such notices had ever been issued.13
Only the orders to Burns and Hetherington, and another order sent to one Ryan,14 who evaded arrest, are mentioned in the
11 Papers, 151-153.
12 Papers, 63-73. Note the Reports 62-64 as examples of the methods of investigation.
13 But the Herald, 1851, June 21, 3%, had stated that many had "received notices to quit, and their good sense had induced them in almost every instance to obey." Bancroft printed an example of such a notice, but no copy is preserved in the archives, and he may have paraphrased the notice given in the Herald in the case of Hetherington. See Popular Tribunals, I, 260.
14 Papers, 502.
233
The Records for June
minutes or the reports. It is very possible, however, that the spurious letters to which the papers alluded are illustrated by a document in the files which warns Colonel James, a well-known criminal lawyer, to leave the city without delay.15 The fact that the minutes made no allusion to Colonel James and that he remained in town without inenrring any censure from the Com- mittee lends color to this supposition.
From the very first day of its existence the Committee recog- nized the importance of prevention as well as of cure in handling the criminal conditions that confronted the city. An attempt was therefore made to check the increase of the convict colony in Sydney Valley. The statute of 1850 which prohibited the im- migration of criminals,16 although nominally in force, appears to have been ignored, perhaps because California officials realized that it was futile to attempt the exclusion of immigrants by local enactments after the Supreme Court had declared that similar legislation in New York and Massachusetts was unconstitutional. The Committee of Vigilance was undeterred by nice distinctions between state and Federal prerogatives. Therefore when it received a report that five hundred convicts were on their way to San Francisco, completely organized for crime,17 it undertook to send back, on its own responsibility, those who seemed to belong to a criminal class.18 It was announced in the California Courier
15 Papers, 69. 16 See supra, p. 123.
17 Papers, 30. Reference to the immigration from Sydney was con- stantly made in the papers, and the following quotation from the Alta, 1851, May 10 31, is an example: "A vessel has arrived within a few days from Sydney, without her Port clearance. This is proof she was not searched by the Water Police before leaving .... Some of the passengers on this vessel have their heads shaved, proving their infamous characters. They have evidently been smuggled away from Australia and smuggled into our com- munity. The authors and abettors of this outrage deserve to be lynched without mercy for the villainy. Is there no authority which can look into and prevent such abuse of our generosity towards other nations ?.... Our people must take this matter in hand."
18 The Committee also considered taking legal steps against shipmasters who brought convict passengers to the state (Papers, 178, 291, 434, 440, 547).
234
Vigilance Committee of 1851
of June 16 that arrangements had been made with the officers of the United States Revenue Department, by which the Committee would have access to incoming vessels, and would be given an opportunity to investigate the character of the passengers before the latter were allowed to land in San Francisco. Such an inspection had been made of the American bark Chief, which had arrived on the fourteenth, and "reliable persons. well acquainted with residents in the colonies" were employed to assist in the work of identification. The Chief carried no un- desirable immigrants, and the only record of her inspection is contained in the bill for the hire of boats which carried the Vigilantes aboard.19
The statement that the revenue officers agreed to assist the Committee in this matter is confirmed by a note from Captain McGowan, of the revenue eutter Polk, conveying the information that the bark John Potter arrived from Sydney on July 2. This note was directed to "Mr. S. E. Woodworth, For 'Vigilanee Committee.'" an address which proves that Captain McGowan desired to cooperate with the work of the Committee.20
Isaac Bluxome, Jr., thus described the methods employed in the examination of immigrants :21
The Committee sent a boat aboard every vessel that came in from Australia to look for conviets. We had a list, which we got from some Englishman here, of all the eonviet ships that went from England to Australia, alphabetically arranged, extending over several years. We examined all the passengers when the ship came in. They were all placed forward, and called into the Cabin one by one, and questions asked as to what year they arrived in Australia, and by what vessel, and so we identified them, and as fast as they were examined, they were sent aft. Those that were conviets we put into a boat alongside, and sent them ashore to the Committee rooms until there was a vessel going to Australia, when we paid their passage and sent them back. I recollect distinctly one old man that I put into the boat, who was probably eighty years old.
19 Papers, 770, Voucher no. 6.
20 Papers, 136.
21 Bluxome, MS Statement, 15. The "old man" may have been Law- renee Higgins, sixty-nine years of age (Papers, 517).
235
The Records for June
Reports are preserved which cover the examination of pas- sengers on eight vessels. They have not been printed with the other papers as the spelling of the names is very doubtful, and the facts recorded are of a strictly personal nature.22 The fol- lowing extracts, however, illustrate the nature of the question- naires :
George Starbuck, Mate of Bark John Potter. Joined ship at Sydney, 23 of December, 1850. Am an American, a native of Nantucket; have lived in Sydney for the last 20 years-have been an overseer in an oil establishment. My last employer was Chas. Chapman-I have an idea of the character of the passengers-and cannot say anything bad of any one-have been acquainted with many of them for years.
John Carney [on board John Potter], born in Ireland in 1840. Ship Elizabeth from Liverpool to Sydney-remained in Sydney 11 years-no certificate from Consul-Mr. Carney presents certificate from the parish in which he lived-countersigned at Emigrant office.
William Butt [on board Adirondack ]-have lived in Sydney 34 years- left England in Lord Elden, a conviet ship-was a laborer in Sydney-was a servant on Lord Elden-I know Capt. Patterson-on shore-
William Higgs [on board Adirondack]-An American-left London in the Somersetshire for Hobart Town about 9 years ago-She was a convict ship-was not a convict-has not followed the sea for eight years-has been in the tanning business since that time-knows of no convicts on board this ship-does not suspect any one as being a convict. Has a wife and three children on board-first came to Sydney in the Planter a conviet ship (Doubtful).
Thomas Jones [on board Mary Catherine]-An Englishman-left England in 1838-in ship Parkfield for Sydney-a convict ship-was a servant on board-was a prisoner on board.
Emma Jones [on board Mary Catherine]-An Englishwoman-left Eng. in 1837-in ship John Renwick for Sydney-a convict ship for females- was a prisoner.
General Andrew Jackson [on board Mary Catherine], an American, from Honolulu.
22 The lists are summarized in the Papers, Appendix H. See also the Index under "Passengers examined by the C. of V." Four other vessels arrived from the British colonies between June 8 and Sept. 17, 1851; the Sacramento on July 2, with 3 passengers; the Marmion, July 20, with 13; the Rosalind, July 23, with 8; the Titan, August 15, with 3; the Barette, August 22, with 5. They are not mentioned in the records of the Committee.
236
Vigilance Committee of 1851
All the vessels inspected by the Committee were reported in the marine news under the date of their arrival at San Francisco, with mention in nearly every case of the number of passengers. Since it is possible thus to check the reports of the Committee by the records in the daily papers, it seems safe to conclude that the former are fairly aceurate when they give the total number of passengers examined as 495 out of about 865 arrivals.23 Of those examined some 25 were under suspicion as ex-convicts, but only 7 are on record as having been sent back to Sydney.24
The varied activities of the water police ean best be estimated from a study of the bills presented on their aecount, as their chief. Captain Edgar Wakeman, submitted few reports of his proceedings. Writing of his eounection with the Committee he said :23
Of course, I joined the Vigilance Committee, and acted as sheriff at the hanging of Jenkins and Stewart. I have stood many and many a night's watch in the streets of San Francisco, and at one time had a large fleet of boats afloat on the Bay. At this time, I was sometimes called the Emperor of the Port, as all vessels coming in or going out were under my orders and subject to my inspection, the revenue entter Polk being especially at my orders.
His accounts for June show an almost continuous service. There was a trip to Angel Island26 prior to June 19, condueted by ten committeemen, in search of deposits of stolen merchandise. Another trip was made to the Farallones, outside the Golden Gate, apparently on the order of the Committee, but for pur- poses unnamed in any report.27 Wakeman's Log tells of a launch party to those islands at about that time, but it gives no hint of his particular errand.28
23 These figures include the 15 passengers on the Chief reported in the California Courier, but not noted in the files of the Committee.
Alderson, William Barclay, Richard Garland, Thomas and Mary Jones, - Roach, Alexander Wright.
25 Wakeman, Log, 139. 27 Papers, 209, 771 Voucher no. 4.
26 Papers, 769 Voucher no. 4. 28 Wakeman, Log, 168-169.
237
The Records for June
On July 31, 1851, Captain Wakeman assumed command of the passenger steamer Independence. His departure from San Francisco on his initial voyage to Panama was marked by the presentation of a large banner of crimson satin, made by the ladies of the city and emblazoned with the words "Vigilance" and "Eureka." The flag was given into his hands by F. A. Woodworth, and the occasion was considered a public acknowl- edgment of Wakeman's services to the community in connection with the Committee of Vigilance. The thanks of the association were conveyed to him in a letter very characteristic of Stephen Payran, who reviewed Wakeman's efforts to rescue the city from arson, murder, and burglary. and wished the bluff old salt a "long and prosperous life and in the end a safe anchorage in the Haven of Eternal rest."29 W. II. Clark, who succeeded to the post of chief of the water police, did his work so zealousły that he brought upon himself censure for extravagance and an admonition to exercise greater caution in future.30
The constitution of the Committee of Vigilance declared that the members were determined to see to it that criminals no longer escaped punishment by the "quibbles of the law." In order to accomplish this purpose intelligently they kept themselves con- stantly informed of the proceedings in the local courts. In one of the first days of his presidential term Sam Brannan wrote directly to Alexander Campbell, presiding justice of the Court of Sessions, and asked information relative to the effect of the recent revision of the criminal statutes. Judge Campbell replied in a courteous letter, dated June 17. He made no reference to Brannan's connection with the Committee of Vigilance, but assured him that the Court of Sessions would make every effort possible to expedite trials and to administer justice.31
29 Papers, 395-396; Wakeman, Log, 170; Herald, 1851, August 1 23.
30 Papers, 363 377, 824.
31 Papers, 38-39.
238
Vigilance Committee of 1851
The Committee watched with interest several cases which occupied the attention of the courts during the last fortnight of June. When Thomas Yates, or Wood, was arrested by the city police on suspicion of robbery and murder, Van Bokkelen im- mediately reported the case to the Committee. It was followed with attention in the hope that the evidence might assist in the discovery of the men who had stolen a large quantity of jewelry from a merchant named Robert. The Committee ultimately obtained information as to the identity of those thieves, but it was unable to recover the plunder.32
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.