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 24
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
The most effective work of the Committee began at this point. Orders were immediately issued for the arrest of many of those implicated ; searching parties were sent into the interior, and several important captures were made with little difficulty. The first member of the gang to be taken was Jimmy from Town, a small, clean-shaven, Irish sailorman, an adept in the peculiar patter of the thieves' jargon, and a burglar of celebrity.2 Jimmy would steal anything on which he could lay his hands-a trunk of clothes, an office safe, the wallet of his own pal, the earnings of a disreputable woman. When his Irish temper was aroused he would quarrel with his confederates and spoil their plans, so that the more cautious sometimes refused to work with him. But he was useful in many raids, was especially expert in execut- ing daring jail deliveries, and had led in several of the breaks from the San Francisco station house. This light-fingered gen- tleman was caught in Marysville on July 16. Two days later representatives of the Committee secured George Adams, for whom they had been searching since the first days of their investigations.
Adams, who rejoiced in the flattering alias of Jack Dandy, was of English birth and recently from Sydney. While the stigma of penal servitude was not proved against him, he was known in California as a seasoned criminal and a chronic truant from disciplinary lodgings. He was also a useful member of Stuart's organization, since his trade of engineer or millwright
2 For a description of this notorious thief, see Papers, Index under "James Burns." His arrest was announced in the Herald, 1851, July 18 31.
277
On the Trail of Stuart's Companions
enabled him to design tools and keys for expert operations.3 Being at this time a refugee from justice, he had hidden himself in a lonely spot on the banks of the American River, where he was arrested by civil officers on July 17, but discharged for lack of positive identification. Members of the Vigilance Com- mittee, more alert in their investigations, seized him before he could again conceal himself, and speedily transported him to the prisoners' room at San Francisco.
Dab, the horse thief mentioned by Stuart, was delivered to the Committee by gentlemen from Marysville on July 17, but Sam Brannan, who had some hand in his capture, effected his release a few hours later for unexplained reasons, and to the great indignation of the entire association. The incident occurred on a night when there was evidence of unusual excitement and tension in the rooms of the Committee. Dab seems to have been at large in the outer apartment, but Van Bokkelen, the chief of police, had taken the precaution to forbid egress from head- quarters to all except those who were provided with special per- mits. Brannan, then merely a private member of the General Committee, attempted to remove Dab from the room in defiance of Van Bokkelen's regulations, and finally succeeded in foreing him through the door when it was opened for some one who had the required pass. Before Brannan could follow the chief pulled him back, whereupon there ensued a general rush for the exit by others who had resented detention. Brannan struggled to release himself, threatening "in not very polite language" to use his pistol unless liberated. He was finally allowed to go, the room was cleared, and order restored.
Van Bokkelen reported the occurrence in an indignant note to the Executive Committee, and asked that it be decided whether or not his power was superior to that of a private member, and
3 See Papers, Index under "George Adams." His arrest was noted in the Herald, 1851, July 21 %.
278
Vigilance Committee of 1851
whether or not frivolous pleas should be allowed to frustrate the ends of the Committee. Many voluntary associations would have been disrupted by such a quarrel. In this instance the whole question of authority was referred to the Executive Committee, and was quickly settled by the formulation of adequate by-laws, which were passed a few days later. At the same time the General Committee adopted resolutions which pledged all mem- bers to implicit obedienee to the orders of the chief of police. The incident left the Committee of Vigilance more efficiently organized than ever before.4 It also gives a valuable hint of the erises that must have developed in a body of determined and self-confident men when disputes arose that involved freedom of personal action. Only the bond of a sincere and common purpose could have held them together in irksome subjection to such control.
Brannan ceased to play a leading part in the Committee from this time. A week later he stated that he no longer had free access to headquarters, and was helpless to assist an acquaint- ance who was under suspieion.5
Determined to rid the country of the worst elements of Stuart's gang, the Committee continued the search for other fugitives, especially for Sam Whittaker and for Robert Me- Kenzie. Both of these men were supposed to be in the vicinity of Sacramento or of Stockton. As early as July 10 a party was sent out to secure them, but the search was unavailing." The sergeant-at-arms headed another posse, summoned assistants from the Committees of Stockton and Sonora, and scoured the country about Stockton, Chinese Diggings, Georgetown, James- town, Shaw's Flat, and Sonora." That expedition cost the Com- mittee nearly two hundred dollars. At its close the quest was
4 See Papers, 227 note 14, 294-296, 340-343; also supra, p. 226.
5 Alta, 1851, July 24 31.
6 Papers, 253, 265, Voucher no. 12.
7 Papers, 282, 303, Voucher no. 10.
279
On the Trail of Stuart's Companions
given over to the Committee of Sonora, since it was thought that the fugitives were hiding somewhere in the neighborhood of the southern mines.
Mckenzie was finally discovered in Sacramento, was arrested on July 29 at the instigation of J. G. Schultz, a member of the San Franciseo Committee, and was safely incarcerated at head- quarters by the first of August;8 Whittaker, however, still baffled the Vigilante detectives.
This man for whom they were searching through the high- ways and byways of California seems to have been the typical villain of melodrama. He was about thirty years of age, of medium height, courageous and manly in his bearing. exception- ally neat and particular in his habits of dress, and, according to Joseph Hetherington, the smartest thief in the whole group.º Like Stuart, he had been transported from England in his early youth under a life sentence. He had been freed by a conditional pardon, and had come to California in 1849.10
After some vicissitudes he formed a partnership with an Australian named Teddy McCormac, and together they opened the Port Phillip House, which quickly became a rendezvous for thieves and ruffians. There the two men led a career of successful crime until they treacherously despoiled too intimate an acquaint- ance, one James Kelly, "the fighting man," who reimbursed himself by selling out the Port Phillip House while the senior partner was in Monterey committing perjury in the interests of the robbers of the Custom House.11 Whittaker, thus dispossessed, removed to the IIogans' establishment during Mr. Hogan's absence in the mines.
8 Papers, 402 note 3.
9 Papers, 243. Ryckman was much attracted by Whittaker's manly per- sonality (MS Statement, 10).
10 Papers, 468-469.
11 Papers, 236, 468, 470.
280
Vigilance Committee of 1851
The new lodger was attractive and unfettered by scruples, his hostess was equally attractive, equally unscrupulous, and they quickly resigned themselves to an intimaey that beeame notorious. On Hogan's return from the country he forced the unwelcome guest to leave, but the sordid story had become a matter of common report. and Hetherington repeated it to the Executive Committee with a frankness that could not be misunderstood. It is not beyond the bounds of probability that the two leaders of the Sydney circle were rivals for the favor of the same mistress. Stuart had made no mention of Mrs. Hogan's fondness for Whittaker, but boasted that she wore a daguerreotype of himself ; while Whittaker accused Stuart of plotting to shoot him. either for money or because of jealousy.12
The importance of Mrs. Hogan's position was quickly realized by the Committee, and she and her husband were taken to head- quarters immediately after Stuart and Hetherington had first mentioned their names. but the woman cleverly evaded com- promising questions and betrayed none of the secrets of her lodging house. She denied any relationship with Whittaker beyond that of innkeeper and guest, and when her place was searched she foiled the Committee by secreting his likeness.13 Mr. Hogan aired his grievances without reservation. While he con- tributed nothing of value to the records of the Committee. he must have derived much personal eomfort from this opportunity to brand his supplanter as a roundshouldered person with a turned-up nose.14
After Stuart's confession was published Mrs. Hogan tried to avoid further embarrassment by leaving the country, and took passage on the Cameo for Sydney. The Committee sent on board the vessel and removed her to headquarters. then made further search to see if Whittaker had concealed himself on the same
12 Papers, 242, 474, 475.
14 Papers, 260.
13 Papers, 257-259, 458.
281
On the Trail of Stuart's Companions
boat.15 Though the inspection was fruitless and the woman was quickly released, a watch was kept over her movements. When she presently went to Stockton, orders were sent there to have her followed in the hope of discovering Whittaker's hiding place.16 The surveillance proved futile, however, and another searching party was sent to Sacramento to examine thoroughly the sloughs and creeks of the marshy river.17 Quietly and un- observed Mrs. Hogan slipped southward from Stockton and made her way to San Diego, where, in fact, Whittaker expected to join her. He evidently took the coast route, for he was recog- nized on August 8 in Santa Barbara, where he was taken into custody by Sheriff V. W. Hearne, who at once embarked for San Francisco, intending to deliver him to the police of that city.18
Once again a strange chance placed the Vigilance Committee in possession of an important captive. While Hearne was look- ing for Sheriff Hays he entered the office of J. C. Palmer, to whom he mentioned his errand. J. C. L. Wadsworth, a member of the Committee, had a room in the same building. Palmer immediately told him that Whittaker was even then on board the steamer Ohio lying at Long Wharf. Wadsworth hurried to the water front, meeting J. F. Curtis on the way, and together they induced the captain to deliver the prisoner to them, and so transferred him without violence to the guard room of the Com- mittee of Vigilance. Hearne was reimbursed for the expense of
15 Papers, 293, 298, 335. "The famous Mrs. Hogan ... was seized on Saturday on board a ship in the harbor ... and removed to the Committee Rooms ..... She is about thirty-five years of age, quite genteel in appear- ance, and one who might safely keep a crib without ever being suspected. Her carriage, the most elegant in the city, was waiting on Saturday morn- ing at the door of the Committee Rooms. For what cannot be said-cer- tainly not for the interesting female within" (Herald, 1851, July 21 3%). Voucher no. 15 in the Papers, shows that the carriage was hired by the Committee at an expense of $16.
16 Papers, 363.
17 Papers, 414-416.
18 Papers, 435-436; Herald, 1851, Aug. 12 33.
282
Vigilance Committee of 1851
the trip from Santa Barbara, and he expressed no dissatisfaction with the final disposition of his captive.19
Both Whittaker and Mckenzie proved difficult to handle, maintaining for some time such a stubborn silence that we may leave them. as it were, handcuffed in their prison, while we follow other events of July and August.
Much energy was eonsumed in pursuing other companions of Stuart. Thomas Quick and some of the lesser thieves were caught later, but the Committee was not always successful in securing the prisoners it desired. Thomas Beleher Kay, for instance, was followed in vain although he was in Sacramento when the early suspicions of his criminal activities20 were confirmed by Stuart's confession. Officers were immediately dispatched to arrest him there. They actually had him in their hands on July 11, the day Stuart was hanged, but in view of the intense exeitement pre- vailing at the time Kay persuaded them to allow him to remain at large, and although he then gave his word that he would accompany them voluntarily on the following day he promptly broke this parole and took advantage of his liberty to eseape to San Francisco disguised as an old woman.21 With assumed frankness he wrote to the Committee, promised to surrender himself when desired, and requested that E. G. Anstin should be retained as his counsel, but the office was indignantly refused by Mr. Austin, who more than once acted as legal adviser to the Vigilantes.
Mr. Kay, however, had some friends who were willing to appear in his behalf. One of them was William Thompson, Jr., who with commendable forethought sought to provide sanctuary for the fugitive in one of the erowded apartments of the county jail. On July 11, while Kay was still in Sacramento. Thompson
19 Wadsworth, in MS Vigilance Committees-Miscellany, 25-26; Papers, 454, Voucher no. 40.
20 See supra, p. 238.
21 Papers, 276-277; Herald, 1851, July 16 35; 17 34; Aug. 11 %.
283
On the Trail of Stuart's Companions
made affidavit in San Francisco that the former port warden was even then unlawfully restrained of his liberty on a steamer in the Bay, by "a great number of persons who styled themselves the Vigilance Committee." In that way he procured a writ that required the sheriff of San Francisco to produce the said Belcher Kay in court, in order to prevent his execution at the hands of his captors. Kay's counsel, Mr. MeHenry, then placed his client in the sheriff's care, merely for the purpose of protecting him from the threatened violence of the Vigilance Committee. While he was in confinement the grand jury investigated his affairs, and in order to obtain all the information possible asked the Com- mittee of Vigilance for whatever evidence it had, and even visited headquarters in a body to discuss the matter with the Executive Committee.22 Kay's case was called in court on the same day, but as no complaint had been lodged against the prisoner he was discharged on the ground that the county could not afford the expense of his maintenance or the risk of damages for unlawful detention.23 The grand jury immediately caused his rearrest.24 but after ten days of imprisonment he was again released, "the Grand Jury having represented to the court that they had no presentation to make against defendant." The Committee of Vigilance, learning of the order for his discharge, watched the jail and the outgoing Panama steamer in the hope of making an arrest, but Kay slipped through the guard and made good his escape.25
Ife was fortunate in departing just when he did, for in a few days Whittaker and MeKenzie gave further details of his crimes.
22 Papers, 290, 298. "The Grand Jury and the Vigilance Committee- These two important bodies, the former of which is charged to bring in indictments for murder against the latter, had a free conference on Satur- day at the Committee Rooms. The purpose and proceedings have not transpired" (Herald, 1851, July 21 %).
23 Herald, 1851, July 21, 3%; 22 %.
24 Herald, 1851, July 21 %.
25 Herald, 1851, Aug. 2 34; Papers, 400.
284
Vigilance Committee of 1851
His real name, said Whittaker, was Gibson, and he was also known in England and Paris as Singing Billy and Count Peri. A checkered career had carried him from Europe to the penal colonies of Van Diemen's Land; thence he had eseaped and made his way to California, and although he was so illiterate that he could seareely read and write he beeame a leader in planning and executing many robberies, and was one of the prin- cipals in the attack on Jansen. His appointment to office illus- trated the ease with which past records could be ignored in the new community. We have evidenee, also, that he continued his interesting occupations in other climes. After a sojourn in the southern seas he reappeared to history in South America, and the papers of 1855 reported that he was prominent in a band of ruffians who were committing outrages in Valparaiso.26
While Kay was still in confinement the Committee instigated the grand jury to indiet William Thompson, Jr., on the charge that he had perjured himself when he swore that his friend was under illegal restraint by the Vigilantes. The case was tried in August. Several witnesses described Kay's arrest in Sacramento and the crowd on the San Francisco wharf that awaited the arrival of his steamer. That "crowd" may have been the guard of twenty appointed to act as a "well armed" escort27 and to protect the expected prisoner from possible violence. The evi- dence for the defense, however, characterized it as a large and threatening "mob" that gave vociferous applause to inflammatory speeches in which Sam Brannan promised that the former port warden should hang as "high as Haman within twenty-four
26 Papers. 472, 680 note 1; Alta, 1855, Aug. 7 9/1. Kay's career was mentioned in the San Francisco Call, 1893, Feb. 5, p. 16; H. C. Merwin, Life of Bret Harte, 1911, p. III. He had been appointed port warden by Governor McDougal, and became popular in spite of his close association with the Sydney men. He was acquainted with Dr. Randall, of Monterey, and was suspected of complicity in the robbery of the Custom House. His name also appears in a lurid tale, Mysteries and Miseries of San Francisco [1853].
27 Papers, 265.
285
On the Trail of Stuart's Companions
hours." If we can accept these sworn statements at their face value, we must add another turbulent scene to the instances of disorder that accompanied some of the activities of the Committee of Vigilance. The trial resulted in Thompson's discharge; the jury "under the instruction of the court .. . that the indictment was faulty ... returned a verdiet of not guilty.''28
Messrs. Edwards, Osman, Briggs, Morgan, and Hughes, also evaded arrest by the Committee. Hughes had been tried and acquitted of the burglary of Robert's jewelry store early in June,29 but Whittaker finally said the charge was true and that the plunder had been entrusted to Morgan, who with Edwards, Osman, and Briggs was traced to San Diego, where the party boarded a steamer for Panama. Unsuccessful efforts were made to arrest them at Mazatlan, and again, in October, when it was reported that they had returned to the vieinity of San Francisco.30
The archives contain the names of eighty-six persons who were implicated by the statements of James Stuart and his con- federates. Only twenty-one of these were positively designated as ex-convicts, although a much larger number undoubtedly hailed from the penal colonies. About forty-five of the entire group ean be classed as minor rascals, but the remaining forty-one seem to have achieved unenviable prominence in the circle of outlaws. Fifteen members of this dangerous gang were incarcerated, first and last, within the prisoners' room of the Committee of Vigi- lance, and their trials were prosecuted with vigor.31
28 Papers, 300 note 3; Herald, 1851, July 24 24; Aug. 11 %.
29 See supra, p. 238.
30 Papers, 228 note 16, 444-445, 500, 506, 679 note 1. In June the Com- mittee received a letter which described the escape of a supposed thief, and the recovery of a watch that he had dropped in his flight. Two months later Whittaker identified the fugitive as Old Jack Morgan, a typical example of the interweaving of independent clues (ibid., 47, 476).
31 Compare Papers, Appendix E (list of prisoners), Appendix F (list of Stuart's confederates), and Index under "Convicts."
286
Vigilance Committee of 1851
So far as Stuart's friends were concerned, his statement and that of Joseph Hetherington furnished a basis for examinations. and the accused, sometimes interrogated in private, sometimes confronted with old confederates, one by one admitted their guilt and told more or less of their past life and associations. T. J. L. Smiley said :32
The usual course was first to examine these men in relation to their antecedents, to make particular inquiries in relation to their present life, and to investigate any complaints or charges made against them. These examinations were conducted by Gerrit L. Ryekman and Stephen Payran, who reported the result to the Executive Committee. If the Executive Committee desired any further evidence in relation to the matter, they would either investigate themselves, or refer the matter to a sub-com- mittee. As a general thing, before any definite action was taken, the prisoner was allowed the privilege of appearing before the Committee, and making whatever defence he might be able to in regard to any mis- deeds charged against him. On the report of the Executive Committee, it was referred to the Committee at large, and, on being endorsed by them, was carried into effect. The sentence of the Committee, as a general thing, was banishment, or voluntary transportation, amounting to the same thing. In some few instances, opportunities were given for them to wind up their business and close their affairs, before taking their de- parture.
The great strength of the Committee of '51 lay in the wonderful faculties possessed by two members of the Executive Committee, Gerrit Ryekman and Stephen Payran. The part allotted to them was obtaining information in regard to the antecedents and present life and surround- ings of the parties brought before them. They had a most wonderful faculty of impressing these parties with the fact that their only hope of safety lay in confession of crime. Gerrit Ryckman would talk to them like a father, and they would unbosom themselves fully, uncovering everything without any promise of reward, or special fear of punishment, except on the general principle that they had better make a elean breast of it. Nine times out of ten they confessed, and consented to transporta- tion, glad to get away, particularly when their requests to wind up their affairs were acceded to. With the wonderful power of these men to get so many to confess there was very little for the mass of the Committee to do.
32 Smiley, MS Statement, 2-4.
287
On the Trail of Stuart's Companions
It was not always so easy as Smiley intimated to extort truth- ful confessions from those experts in perjury and evasion. A series of statements made by Adams, Jimmy from Town, Ains- worth, and others, shows how carefully the inquisitors conducted their investigations.33 Adams, for instance, began a plausible tale of honest industry. In the midst of his story he was con- fronted with William Hays, who was under suspicion as a rascal on his own account, and who hoped to win immunity by in- forming on his old friends. Adams denied any acquaintance with him, but Hays recounted various experiences which he claimed they had shared in common, especially one incident of an Indian celebration. "It was about the third of July. Wasn't it ?" he queried, and Adams incautiously corrected "The Fourth!" The lying defense was broken down ; a whining con- fession followed, and George Adams may well have trembled for his life as he realized how many scores were accumulating against him upon the records of the Vigilantes.
After the committeemen had played the rôles of detectives, police, prosecutors, and juries, they were called upon to act as judges and pronounce sentences upon these convicted or self- confessed thieves. Here we mark another striking divergence of method between their course and that of other popular trib- unals which have been noticed in the earlier pages of this volume. The people's courts of the unorganized frontier and of the mining camps of 1848 and 1849 considered themselves the legiti- mate representatives of law in regions physically beyond the reach of legal institutions; those that persisted in California in 1850 and 1851 frankly ignored or defied the constitutional authorities which they found powerless or unwilling to safe- guard society. The Committee of Vigilance, however, acknowl- edged the supremacy of the existing government, and was
33 Papers, 314-327.
288
Vigilance Committee of 1851
pledged by its constitution to sustain the law when it was faith- fully and properly administered. By the middle of July erim- inal conditions in San Francisco had changed decidedly for the better since the early days of June when Jenkins was given his short shrift: the revised statutes were in effect, one or two of the local judges showed themselves incorruptible in executing justice, the grand jury was zealous in returning indictments, the popular interest was aroused, the courtrooms were thronged with critical spectators, and verdicts inclined towards a salutary se- verity. The primary object of the Committee was not the pun- ishment of criminals, but the protection of society. As soon as the courts gave promise of better efficiency the Committee turned to them as the most desirable source of discipline, and adopted the poliey of delivering to the officers of the law those prisoners whose guilt was so clearly established that conviction might be expected, and whose crimes were not so heinous that the safety of the community demanded their execution.
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.