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 22
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
81 See infra, p. 347 et seq.
82 Initiation fees for June were received from 477 members, and 71 remained delinquent (Papers, 764).
83 This fact was noted in the Herald, 1851, June 21 23. Ryckman related an amusing story of the horror with which a detractor of the Committee
251
The Records for June
the exception of the names that had been printed after Jenkins' execution, the personnel of the association was shrouded in mystery. No secret, however, was made of the aims and the methods adopted by the Vigilantes; the location of their head- quarters was known to every one in the city, frequent notices were printed of their meetings, and many proceedings were reported so accurately in the leading papers that it is evident the Committee desired to keep the public informed of its policies and actions.84
The members of the Committee were still convinced of the existence in the community of some sort of organized band of criminals, recruited chiefly from the Sydney immigrants. From the investigations of the Vigilante police, and the testimony given by the witnesses in the cases of Burns, Hetherington, and other prisoners, they began to see definite traces of such a criminal brotherhood. Names appeared which were familiar on the dockets of the city courts-Adams, Beck, Edwards, Ainsworth, Ogden- and all seemed to be mutual friends and common habitués of the lodging houses kept by Sydney landlords. But the evidence was still so detached and indefinite that no one could unravel from it any clue to the band of outlaws who were supposed to haunt the nooks and corners of Sydney Valley.
learned that the friend to whom he complained was himself a member of the secret tribunal (MS Statement, 8).
84 See an excellent account of the work for June, from the Herald, infra, p. 462.
CHAPTER XII
JAMES STUART. OUTLAW
With the opening of July the work of the Committee of Vigi- lance suddenly assumed a new and much more definite phase as a result of the capture of James Stuart, already mentioned in connection with the attack on (. J. Jansen and the arrest of Thomas Berdue.
This strange episode of mistaken identity seems almost incredible when one reads it among the tales of the California pioneers, but it loses none of its vividness when verified from the documents of the Committee of Vigilance and the conrt reports in the newspapers of the day.
Stuart. an ex-conviet from Sydney who had been in Cali- fornia since November. 1849,1 was widely and unfavorably known in the criminal records of the state under the aliases of Mason, Carlisle. Campbell. Long Jim, and English Jim. Early in October, 1850, he was tried by Judge O. P. Stidger, of Marys- ville. for the theft of four or five thousand dollars from Dodge and Company, of Foster's Bar. One attempt to lynch him was frustrated by the authorities, and he succeeded in breaking jail before the case was concluded." Two months later he was in the same region with two companions. As all three were out of funds. they "concluded that they might as well be dead as without money and agreed to go up to the mountains and rob every man they met, till each had $20,000."3 The first victim was Charles
1 See his statement, Papers, 139. A story was repeated by James O'Meara, who did not vouch for its truth, to the effect that Stuart, under the alias of Shaw, worked in the mines in Nevada County early in 1850, and honestly dispatched to England a very large sum of gold dust entrusted to his care by an unsuspecting comrade (Sacramento Bee, 1881, Dec. 31, p. 1).
2 Papers, 169, 227.
3 Papers, 256.
253
James Stuart, Outlaw
Moore, who was on his way to Marysville to make purchases for his store in the little camp of Winslow Bar, near the larger settle- ment of Foster's Bar." The bandits shot Moore in cold blood, secured a quantity of gold, and made their escape. Although Stuart's participation in the crime was generally suspected, he concealed himself for a time in Sacramento, where he drove a brisk trade in stolen horses and engaged in a profitable series of burglaries. He was several times under arrest for larceny, but was skilfully defended by Frank M. Pixley.
At one time while Stuart was confined on the prison brig La Grange, residents of Marysville recognized him and charged him with the murder of Moore. About the same time other men arrived from Auburn to see if the prisoner might be either of two brothers named Stewart, who had killed Sheriff Echols in Auburn, in June, 1850.5 With that murder Stuart had no con- neetion whatever, but it was sometimes charged against him, and was often confused with the death of Moore, who was sometimes called "Sheriff Moore," or "Sheriff of Yuba." The people from Marysville were so sure of their man that they set about proeur- ing the papers necessary for his removal. Before this could be accomplished the prisoner made his eseape and went by a cir- cuitous route to San Francisco, where he hid in various lodging houses of Sydney Valley. There he gathered to himself a band of kindred spirits and direeted them in a series of daring rob- beries, including the assault on Jansen.6 In April he rode boldly down to Monterey, where four or five of his friends were on trial
4 History of Yuba County, 94, 124; Herald, 1851, March 28 23. The murder was probably in December, and a footnote on p. 137 of the Papers should be corrected to that effect.
5 William and Samuel Stewart killed Echols on June 2, 1850. As the sheriff had been unpopular, the justice of the peace merely admitted the murderers to bail, to answer to the charge of assault with intent to kill. The county judge caused the rearrest of Samuel, but as he was allowed to exer- eise outside his place of confinement, he easily escaped, and neither culprit was brought to justice (Sacramento Daily Transcript, 1850, Aug. 13 1/5).
6 See Stuart's confession, Papers, 231-234.
254
Vigilance Committee of 1851
for robbing the Custom House of $14,000 in the previous Deeem- ber. Assuming the alias of James Carlisle, he appeared as a witness in their behalf, and exerted himself in effective perjury. When the jury disagreed and the prisoners were remanded for another trial, Stuart again went to their resene, broke open the jail, and then betook himself to the southern mines.7
Among the documents of the Committee of Vigilance is a stained and ragged sheet of letter paper, folded for mailing without an envelope, and onee sealed with the convenient red wafer of business correspondence. Inseribed on the inner page is the following message :8
San Francisco June 19th 1851
Old Fellow
Look out the Hawks are abroad and after you both here and down below, you had better keep in the upper Country at present, I can say no more at present
Yours S. W.
This was originally addressed to J. Taylor, Marysville, Ynba County, California, and consigned for delivery to Freeman's Express. The text and the address of this missive are neat and legible, but the eramped initials of the signature are the work of an awkward penman, and the same untrained hand has serawled above the name of Taylor the further direction. "In care of S. Stewart." The tattered sheet guards its seeret to this day, but stimulates the imagination by suggesting that it was sent to Stuart by his companion, Sam Whittaker, as a warning to beware of trouble. In any case, we know from Stuart's own lips that he lingered in the mining region until near the end of June, then grew fearful of reeognition there and returned to San Francisco to hide with an old friend and compatriot. Kitchen, the boatman.9
7 Papers, 237; infra, p. 309.
9 Papers, 237.
$ Papers, 62.
255
James Stuart, Outlaw
Hearing before long of a Spaniard in the Mission whose house promised excellent plunder, he walked out there to meet an alleged cousin, called Stephens, and arranged with him the details of a raid. Assistants were necessary, and Stuart returned to town to obtain them. It is evident that the fear of detection was upon him, for on the morning of July 1 he was skulking in the underbrush of the sand hills, near the present corner of Powell and California streets, waiting for a safe moment to go upon his way, but retiring steathily as he spied approaching strangers. It was the old story of the fugitive betrayed by his own caution. It so happened that a house or tent in the neighborhood had just been robbed of a trunk containing clothing and valuables, and a party of men were beating the brush in search of the thief. They spied Stuart as he slipped furtively behind a bit of scrub oak and seized him before he eould escape.10 His clean, light clothes, still creased from reeent packing, led his captors to fancy that he might have discarded his own suit for garments appropriated from the missing chest. This he denied. insisting that he had not changed his clothes for some days, and that he was innocently walking back to San Francisco from the Mission. When they retorted that he had chosen a "damned pretty way to come from the Mis- sion," he became confused, and it was determined to płaee him somewhere in safe keeping. The rooms of the Committee of Vigilance were suggested, as affording more security than the city lock-up. Stuart calmly acquiesced, remarking that he would go there with pleasure, since he was anxious to see the far-famed institution.11
At headquarters he made a favorable impression by reason of his apparent frankness and his attractive personality. He was
10 Papers, 140-143.
11 Ryekman, MS Statement, 9.
256
Vigilance Committee of 1851
a well proportioned man of medium height. One member of the Committee has described him as exceedingly handsome, and it was said that his features suggested the traditional pictures of Christ.12 His maner was always cool and confident, his courage equal to any emergency. When interrogated he gave his name as William Stevens (or Stephens), denied his connection with the theft for which he was arrested, and again tried to establish an alibi by stating that he had that morning walked from San Francisco to the Mission Dolores and back again, a story which may have been quite true. G. E. Schenck said that Stuart's answers were so prompt and his manner so open, that it was proposed to release him at once, in spite of the fact that he carried a pistol and a bowie knife fourteen inches long. Ilis clean clothes, however, belied the assertion that he had worn them during the long and dusty walk from Sonora. This dis- crepancy aroused fresh suspicion, and it was decided to detain him over night.13
In his effort to account for his past life, Stuart went so far as to begin a written statement, which is still preserved among the archives.14 and is still potent to conjure up a vision of the clean-limbed Australian hiding his murderous past behind a mask of assumed frankness while inwardly alive to the deadly peril of his situation. He wrote but a few lines with his own hand, and the pencilled addenda indicate that Sam Brannan continued the statement from dietation, so that the pages be- come doubly interesting as relies of two vivid and historie per- sonalities.
13 From a reporter's interview with au unnamed physician in Oakland, easily identified as Dr. Samuel Merritt (Oakland Tribune, 1884, April 5 56). Stuart's attractive personality much impressed James Dows (MS Statement. 4).
13 Schenck, MS Statement. 28. Other committeemen related the capture to Bancroft. They varied in slight details, but agreed as to the main facts. 14 Papers, 137-140.
257
James Stuart, Outlaw
In the morning John Sullivan (he who assisted at the capture of Jenkins) went on guard duty. The events that followed are related by Schenck :15
On taking his position, he naturally opened the door and looked in to see who was in his keeping, when he espied in a corner of the room, one whom he had formerly known, and he sung out to him "Halloo, Jim! How did you come here?" The person accosted pretended not to know him, and Sullivan said, "You needn't pretend not to know me; I know who you are. I worked for you six months at Foster's Bar." He then closed the door, and called to me, as I happened to be near, and said "Mr. Schenck, do you know who you have got here? ... Why, you have got English Jim, or Jim Stuart, the man who murdered the Sheriff of Auburn [Charles Moore of Winslow Bar], and I was present when he was about to be lynched at Marysville, when the rope broke and he escaped.
In the first flush of exultation over the unexpected capture the thoughts of the Committee turned to the unhappy Berdue, whose trial at Marysville had been most fortunately delayed until the end of June. There was still a possibility of rescue, although not a moment could be lost. Schenck, assisted by R. S. Watson,16 raised funds the same afternoon to send a messenger to arrest proceedings. Captain Hartford Joy was entrusted with a letter from President Brannan to the Vigilance Committee of Marys- ville, asking assistance in gaining possession of "the person of Stewart, the assasin of Jansen."17 Two days later the Executive Committee instructed the secretary to ask the Marysville Com- mittee to send to San Francisco several important witnesses to testify in the examination of the "Prisoner Stephens."18 Both of these letters were acknowledged on June 6 by John H. Jewett, president of the Marysville Committee,19 who stated that "James Stuart, alias Thomas Berdue," had been found guilty on Friday, the fourth, and awaited sentence on Monday; that the local
15 Schenck, MS Statement, 29-30.
16 Schenck, MS Statement, 30. Watson had been foreman of the jury in the trial of Berdue in February and had used his influence to prevent Berdue's condemnation (Royce, California, 412).
17 Papers, 143. 18 Papers, 164. 19 Papers, 220-221.
258
Vigilance Committee of 1851
Committee was firmly convinced of his guilt, was determined to see due punishment inflicted, and was not at all inelined to allow a postponement on account of the capture just made in San Francisco.2"
The witnesses, however, were sent as requested. In the mean- time others had been found nearer at hand.21 On July 4 the prisoner was confronted by four men besides Sullivan, who posi- tively identified him as the James Stuart of criminal notoriety. The accused was permitted to eross-question the witnesses, and Selim E. Woodworth acted as his advocate. During a part of the examination the British consul was present.22 Stuart still insisted that his name was Stevens, and repeated the story of the cousin in the suburbs of the city. In order to give him an opportunity to prove his tale he was driven out to the Mission with an armed guard and an escort of horsemen, but the elusive kinsman could not be discovered.23 An effort was also made to identify the prisoner through the police of the city, and Officers W. A. Thorp. R. C. MeIntire, and A. J. MeCarty were called to headquarters. Thorp branded Stuart as a thief, but although MeIntire and MeCarty were well acquainted with the criminal, they stontly maintained that he was unknown to them. Their staunchness was poorly repaid. When the rogue turned informer he included the two policemen in the long list of his confederates, and their names were often repeated by others of the gang.24
In their search for competent witnesses the Committee turned to Frank Pixley, who had formerly acted as Stuart's attorney.
20 Details of the trial and testimony were given in the History of Yuba County, 124-125. See also Popular Tribunals, I, 194-196.
21 Papers, 165-170.
22 Papers, 176.
23 Papers, 165, 174. Curtis and Spence visited the Mission early in the course of the trial, and reported that they had been forestalled by someone who claimed to represent the Committee, and told "everything we knew !!! " (Papers, 169).
24 Papers, 176, 188, 234 note 31.
259
James Stuart, Outlaw
Pixley was now city attorney of San Francisco, and he had pre- viously sworn that Berdue was not the man he had defended at Sacramento. Bluxome related the interview with great zest :25
Stephen Payran, Jacob Van Bokkelen and myself were appointed a committee of three to examine those who came to the door. We went out and found Frank Pixley. Van Bokkelen was the spokesman. Said he, "Pixley, will you say on your word of honor, if this man is the man whom you have defended time and again in the lower courts?" "I will, gentlemen," said he. Van Bokkelen administered the oath, if it could be called an oath. We all went into the prisoner's room with Frank Pixley. The man was chained by his wrists and legs. He was sitting on a long bench, and the moment he saw Pixley, he thought his deliverer had come. He stood up, and we saw that they recognized each other, and Jake said to Pixley, "Is that Stuart or not?" Said he, "You have no authority to ask me any questions, you are an illegal body." The others heard what was going on through the thin partition, and when Pixley answered in this way called out, "Hang him! Hang him!" We had ropes and tackle all ready, and Jake just pushed him down the stairs, or he would have been hung. The people were angry with him beeanse he defended all the thieves. Then we knew that the prisoner was the genuine Stuart.
The capture of James Stuart gave rise to a very serious sit- uation in the affairs of the Committee of Vigilance. News of the arrest soon spread through the community, and the probable fate of the prisoner was discussed with the greatest interest. The Vigilantes knew that their action in this case would be taken as a test of their courage, sincerity, and self-control, and the early days of July were filled with hard work and strenuous meetings. The records for this period are evidently incomplete, as they fail to include some of the evidence in Stuart's case.26 They also omit all explanation of a very important change that occurred among the officers of the Committee, and which must be men- tioned at this point although it may not have been connected with the excitement attending the trial.
25 Bluxome, MS Statement, 8-9. Pixley's connection with Stuart is further discussed, infra, p. 265.
26 Some of the missing evidence was published in the newspapers, and has been reprinted with the official documents.
260
Vigilance Committee of 1851
A day or two after the arrest of Stuart, Sam Brannan, hitherto the leading spirit of the association, relinquished all positions of importance. On July 2 he presided at a morning session of the Executive Committee, and wrote an official letter to Marysville. Another document that is mentioned in the minutes of that day he did not sign. It was signed instead by "Stephen Payran, President of Executive Committee," and Payran was definitely acting as chairman by July 4.27
A few days later Brannan considered himself so insulted by the sergeant-at-arms, A. J. MeDuffee, that he wished to with- draw entirely from membership in the Executive Committee, and to give up the office he still held as general president. Explanations and apologies mollified him for a short time, but on July 8 he finally left the Executive Committee. On the next day the General Committee also accepted his resignation as president, tendered him a vote of thanks, and appointed Selim E. Woodworth in his place.28 In making these changes in the personnel of the leaders, the Committee of Vigilance gave an early illustration of its constant tendeney to strengthen the power of the more conservative members. The trait is particularly worthy of attention because it diverges most radically from the inclination towards severity and violence that has marked the progress of many other extra-legal protective associations.
There are few records to show Woodworth's direct influence. He acted chiefly as a presiding officer, but his attendanee at all meetings was regular and punctual, and under his guidance the General Committee was safeguarded from impetuous and ill-considered courses of action.
Stephen Payran on the other hand immediately and perma- nently imposed upon the proceedings of the Executive Committee the stamp of his own personality. He believed almost passion- ately in the legitimate function of the Committee as an expression
27 See Papers, 133, 143, 154, 164.
28 See Papers, 175, 179-182, 198, 202, 215, 246.
261
James Stuart, Outlaw
of the will of the people at large, and as an agent to protect them from corrupt publie servants; and he felt a solemn obligation to meet these responsibilities with integrity and justice, and to leave on record a careful history of the manner in which these duties were accomplished. Brannan was a wretched penman and an execrable speller, and few papers perpetuate his activities as president. Payran was indefatigable in preparing reports and wrote with his own hand many of the minutes of the Executive Committee. One may say that he never neglected any oppor- tunity to attach his name to an official paper, and he signed and countersigned and attested and endorsed with supreme indifference to any personal punishment that the outraged law might ultimately inflict. He was painstaking, cautious, yet courageous-the antithesis of Brannan, who was all too ready to hang first and try afterwards. He assumed leadership in the Committee at a most critical time, when the archcriminal Stuart was handcuffed in the prisoner's room, and witnesses from all over the state were piling up against him a mass of damning evidence.
Stuart finally realized that further denials and evasions were useless, and all the members of the Committee seem to agree with a statement made by W. T. Coleman, that the culprit "con- ceived the idea of making a full confession, and asked the privi- lege of doing it."29 Bancroft portrayed the amount of self- revelation as a dramatic climax to the breakdown of Stuart's incognito,30 but there is evidence to show that it was an audacious effort to evade a swift and righteous retribution. Before the Vigilante court technicalities and bravado availed him nothing, but he realized that his judges were eager to purge the state of the Sydney convicts. He therefore resolved to bargain to his own advantage, and at the sacrifice of his accomplices.
29 Coleman, MS Statement, 25.
30 Popular Tribunals, I, 281. It is possible that Bancroft often used verbal recollections of the Vigilantes as well as their dictated statements.
262
Vigilance Committee of 1851
We do not know to whom he made his first proposition, but in due time it was submitted to the Executive Committee. This we learn from a report31 which states that the prisoner was will- ing to make a full confession and to incriminate his various confederates, provided he should then be handed over to the courts for trial on the charge of the murder in Yuba County; if he failed to fulfill the stipulated terms, or to eonviet at least ten criminals, he was to remain in the hands of the Committee of Vigilance. Delivery to the constituted authorities would hold out an excellent chance of escape, and the prisoner was quite aware that an uncorroborated confession could easily be set aside iu a legal trial.32 Stuart himself, using the alias of William Stephens, signed the report referred to, but although the docu- ment was endorsed as correet by President Payran, it was not countersigned by any other official and it is mentioned but once in the subsequent discussions of the prisoner's fate. It bears no date save the endorsed date of filing, July 9, but it affords a valuable elne to the impulse that prompted Stuart to unbosom himself to his jailers, and to lay bare not only his own erimes, but the guilty participation of many friends whose safety he had formerly guarded even at the risk of his own freedom.
On July 8 the General Committee met twice and the Exeeu- tive Committee met three times. At the last gathering, held at half past ten in the evening, Mr. Spenee was appointed to "con- duet the examination of Prisoner Stephens," and it was ordered that questions should be put on paper and asked by Spenee alone.33 Coleman said of the events of that night :34
I myself assisted, as one of the Executive Committee, in hearing and recording this confession, and sat up through the whole night, and until the morning sun shone in at the window, before it was completed. He
31 Papers. 223-224.
32 The Vigilaute (Dr. Merritt), who told of Stuart in the Oakland Tribune, 1884, April 5 56, said that the prisoner seemed to rely on this point of law.
33 Papers, 216. 34 Coleman, MS Statement, 25.
263
James Stuart, Outlaw
[Stuart ] went through the whole range of his many rascalities, gave vivid descriptions of his adventures, entering with great zest into the details, and it was curious to see his eye brighten and twinkle, and a smile play round his facile countenance, when describing his best successes, and recount- ing his best jobs. He threw off all restraint or reservation, and felt that he was bringing to light a brilliant record that had heretofore been neces- sarily kept in the dark.
The confession is dated, "Vigilance Committee Room, July 8th, 1850, 101/2 p.m.," and its length confirms Coleman's state- ment that it was not completed before daylight of the next morning. It did not reveal the prisoner's real name, and it touched but lightly on his early experiences, when as an English lad of sixteen he was transported for life to the penal colonies on a charge of forgery. Released after six years, he was free to drift first to South America, and later to San Francisco. Of his career in California he drew a startling picture.35
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.