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 27
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
Several pictures might be shown under the common title, "Baffled Villainy." One will suffice. It is night. Here is the office of Charles Minturn, on a wharf which stretches its slender length into the shadowy waters of the bay. A few oil lamps gleam in dancing spirals across the waves and make it possible to note a boat edging noiselessly along the piling until it comes to a mooring directly beneath the deserted building. Figures creep up a landing stage and enter the office, prepared to cut away the floor and lower the safe into the boat; MeKenzie and Belcher Kay wait outside as lookouts. All goes well until an unwary interloper appears, a clerk or wharfinger returning for a forgotten paper. The lookouts signal the danger and dash off up the pier ; the windows are thrown open; half a dozen forms hurtle through space into dark and friendly waters. In the bar of the Port Phillip House the swimmers meet again, furious with their lookouts because they have allowed them to run from one man, a weakness of which the leader, Stuart, seems heartily ashamed. The whole party is most soundly berated by George Adams, who, though excluded from the adventure, had loaned a kit of expensive tools on the promise of a generous share in the plunder. There is no plunder, and the tools are lost.9
Such were the everyday experiences related by the more adventurous men who fell into the hands of the Committee of Vigilance. Many of their obscure friends also gained distinction in the course of the protracted examinations, if not by sharing in deeds of daring, perhaps by the sheer force of some telling alias. Besides Dab and Jack Dandy and Jimmy from Town,
8 Papers, 233-234, 470-471, 478-479, and Index under "Jansen."
9 Papers, Index under "Minturn." Ryckman gave some details of the attempt (MS Statement, 6-7).
313
Adventures in Crime
whom we have met already, the archives of the Committee res- cued from oblivion the names of Billy Sweet Cheese, Bungaraby Jack, and Moe the Jew; of Big Brummy, a man of mystery ; of Tommy Round Head : of Slasher, the cutthroat, and of Peruvian Angel, whose tint may be inferred from Havana, the city of his nativity. By these names they exchanged greetings in the reek- ing saloons of Sydney Valley ; by the same tokens they betrayed one another, as they strove to placate the Vigilantes with glib or halting confessions of crime.
It should not be overlooked that these intimate pictures of San Francisco life have a value quite apart from their criminal connection in their many references to local happenings and points of interest. North Beach and Clark's Point, Long Wharf and Cat Alley, the El Dorado gambling house, and the Old Adobe are mentioned as familiar scenes of everyday existence. Many officials are named, for praise or for blame; members of the police force are critically appraised; and even the eight variations used in writing the city's name are not without in- terest to the collector of bygone traditions.10
It is natural that queries should arise as to the reliability of this mass of confession and evidence. Can it be accepted at its face value, or must it be more or less discounted as a record of crime? Was there an opportunity for prisoners to consult one another, to prepare supporting falsehoods, and to protect themselves at the expense of others? And did they minimize or exaggerate their own misdeeds? There is no ques- tion that there was great opportunity for the prisoners of the Committee to prevaricate. There were minor discrepancies in the evidence presented by the various speakers, although there was little divergence that cannot be traced to the normal desire of each culprit to shift the heaviest blame to the shoulders of another. Stuart's confession was published in part on July 11,
10 Papers, Index under "San Francisco."
314
Vigilance Committee of 1851
and republished in full a week later. Since doubtless it was read by every one of his confederates, it was natural that all of them who fell into the hands of the Committee should unite in emphasizing his guilt and in palliating their own. But even in following that course subsequent confessions contradicted Stuart in few points, and Whittaker's almost equally important story confirmed and amplified it in several particulars.
Experience has shown that it is well to accept self-accusations with cantion, especially those induced by threats or promises. In these accounts, however, when we turn to the accessible sources of verification, we find that the news items and the court reports of the San Francisco Herald and of the Alta California confirm the details of all the more important episodes related by the prisoners and the witnesses of the Committee. That is to say, the published facts as to time, place, method, and result, do not in any case conflict with the fuller statements submitted to the Committee of Vigilance. Those statements, therefore, must have been true at least in outline.
Although the work involved in ferreting out and dispersing the members of this particular gang constituted the major por- tion of the activities of the Committee, the accomplices of James Stuart were not the only objects of investigation. Other arrests were deemed expedient. It also became a common practice for citizens to take to headquarters any man accused of any kind of crime. During the weeks of July and August and early September there were many such individual cases considered in the reports of the Executive Committee, and some of them should be mentioned here.
While inspecting the haunts of the Sydney men the Com- mittee came upon John Goff, a lodging house keeper, and such a close friend of undesirable citizens that his record was ex- amined with attention. It was discovered that Goff had been
315
Adventures in Crime
transported for life on a charge of burglary, and had been per- mitted to leave the penal colonies only because of a conditional pardon, "effective in all parts of the world except the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."11 While he was never convicted of overt crimes against the peace of the Commonwealth of California, his house was such a rendezvous for those who did violate the laws, and for policemen suspected of abetting them, that a sentence of banishment was pronounced against him. The Committee was aware of much public sympathy with the accused, and therefore published the entire evidence in the case in the daily papers. Nevertheless it still insisted upon the execution of the sentence, although Goff's time was extended more than once on account of the illness of his wife. It is prob- able that he left the city on his own vessel, the Veto, some time about the middle of August.12
One of the earliest appeals made to the Committee from without was a request from Lieutenant George H. Derby, of the Topographical Engineers, that the Vigilante police would ap- prehend one Samuel Church, who was a deserter from the army, a worthless scoundrel in general, and a blackguard in particular because of his theft of the aggrieved officer's favorite saddle horse. Lieutenant Derby, although a lover of stern discipline, possessed literary ability that made him famous, under the pseudonym of John Phoenix, as the author of popular humorous sketches; he was, moreover, a gifted letter writer, and he de- luged the Committee with reports covering the case, urging it to hang the man at once as the only way to rid the state of a dangerous criminal. The evidence of witnesses summoned from a distance at considerable expense clearly established Church's guilt. The Committee, however, voted to hand him over to the military authorities in spite of the fact that a flogging would
11 See Herald, 1851, July 18 24.
12 See Papers, Index, under "John Goff."
316
Vigilance Committee of 1851
be the heaviest punishment likely to befall him. Lieutenant Derby protested not a little at such leniency, but he did not forget to express his thanks "as a citizen and as an officer of the army" for the work the society had done for the preservation of order in California.13
The action in the case of Church conformed with the prin- ciple of delivering prisoners to the constituted authorities when- ever it seemed probable that the laws would accomplish the ends desired for the good of the community. The same course was pursued , with Hamilton Taft, a confessed thief from Placer County, who was sent back to the scene of his crime together with his plunder of fifteen hundred dollars. A guard was ap- pointed from the Committee, and two of his accusers assisted them, giving bonds of a thousand dollars that they would de- liver the prisoner and his booty to the officials of the county. The papers drawn up and signed in this connection illustrate a constant tendency to elothe the irregular aets of this voluntary association with the dignity and formality of legitimate legal transactions.14 It is curious to see that the men who hanged Stuart without the shadow of authority, four days later demanded a precise and formal bond to insure from other private citizens the performance of a duty which, by rights, appertained solely to officers of the law. Certainly the chairman of the Committee of Vigilance of San Francisco was scarcely in a position to undertake a suit in the courts of his city, and the carefully indited instrument could have exercised no very great compul- sion upon Benjamin Jenkins and David Howe, who put their names to the agreement.
Samuel Church was not the only deserter of whom the Con- mittee took cognizance. Howard, another trnant from the army, was returned to his commanding officer, and at least one run-
13 See Papers, 85, 107-109, 199-200.
14 Papers, 287-289.
317
Adventures in Crime
away sailor was restored to his ship.15 W. G. Hance had escaped from a prison in Panama, where he was under sentence of death for murder. Warned of his presence in San Francisco, the Committee arrested him and sent him back to his own country "on the ground that it would be contrary to equity that he should be punished by us in the absence of all proof, and for crimes committed beyond our jurisdiction."16
Among the vessels inspected by the Committee was the Johnson or Johnston from Sydney. Her surgeon, Dr. Kennedy, was arrested by the chief of the water police on the charge of stabbing the captain, and was immediately turned over to the city authorities.17
More thorough investigations were made when there was evidence that crimes of violence arose from design and treachery rather than from bursts of sudden passion. For example: When Don Francisco Guerrero, a former Mexican magistrate, was thrown from his horse on the Mission Road and sustained fatal injuries that led to a rumor of foul play, the Committee lost not a moment in placing scouts all about the city in search of the suspected murderer, François Le Bras. He was soon ar- rested and was detained as a prisoner of the Committee, although he was produced at the inquest and was identified by the wit- nesses there present. The coroner's jury charged him with strik- ing Guerrero on the head and thus causing his death. But the Committee refused to give him up, even in response to a writ of habeas corpus, until an exhaustive investigation, attended by
15 Papers, 596, 637, 638. The only record of the deserting sailor is found in the following notice from the Herald, 1851, June 26 % :
"The Undersigned begs to return his sincere thanks to the Committee of Vigilance for the services rendered him last night in arresting a deserter from his vessel, and returning him on board.
BAUGINET, Capt. of Belg. ship Louis, consigned to E. Delessert, Ligeron & Co."
16 Papers, 425, 608. The Herald, 1851, Nov. 18 33, reported that Hance was serving out his sentence in the chain gang in Carthagena.
17 Papers, 430.
318
Vigilance Committee of 1851
the French consul, had convinced the Executive Committee that the man was not guilty. After five days he was delivered to Sheriff Hays. In due time he was tried and acquitted.18
Another murder on the Mission Road engaged the attention of the Committee. Thomas Wheeler, a former servant of Colonel Frémont, suddenly disappeared and his body was found bearing marks of violence. Thereupon Mrs. Fremont's brother, Mr. William Carey Jones, turned to the Committee of Vigilanee as the most effective detective agency in the city. This appeal is another indication of the general approval of Vigilante methods, for Mr. Jones was a law-abiding citizen of unquestioned standing who had come to California in 1849 as a special government agent for the investigation of land titles. Before his letter was received the Committee was seeking the murderers. A few hours after Wheeler's body was found Sam Brannan notieed two un- prepossessing horsemen near the seene of the erime, and when they dashed off into the brush to avoid questions he summoned help and arrested them at the point of the pistol. Mr. Jones appeared at their trial, but their guilt was not established, and they were discharged after ten days.19
A curious instance, imperfectly explained by the records, was the ease of four Chinese prisoners examined on July 4.20 John Lipscom and Norman Assing, the latter an interpreter and a man of some importance in the small Oriental colony, influenced the Committee to arrest four other Chinese, two men and two women, on the charge of maintaining a disreputable resort. It had been decided to deport the prisoners when Selim E. Woodworth, president of the General Committee, appeared
1% Papers, 272, 275, 281, 291; Alta, 1851, July 14 24 ; 18 22; Nov. 16 24. A. A. Green said that Le Bras, who was supposed to be simple-minded, had been used as a tool by land schemers who wished to get Guerrero out of the way (MS Statement, 80). See also Eldredge, San Francisco, II, 534.
19 See cases of W. L. Harding and John Olligin, Papers, 522, 542, 546, 578-581.
20 Papers, 165, 170-172.
319
Adventures in Crime
in their behalf on the ground that he was a "Mandarin of the Celestial Empire, and Chinese Counsel," an expression which probably denoted some commercial relation with the Chinese companies engaged in the transportation of eoolie immigrants.21 Woodworth characterized the action as a conspiracy to deprive the aeeused of their liberty, and upon his request they were set at liberty. The fact that Assing had made vain efforts in the city courts to obtain possession of a certain emancipated and imprudent young matron ealled Atoy, with the ostensible pur- pose of returning her to a deserted husband in China, suggested that he might have hoped for better success through an appeal to the Vigilance Committee, but as the names of the women are not given in the documents their identity was a matter of con- jecture until it was confirmed by a paragraph in Holinski's La Californie, which narrated the incident, and attributed Atoy's arrest to the efforts of the Chinese colony to suppress their notorious country-women.22 Holinski wrote :
On fit entendre anx serupuleux Chinois qu'il était impossible d'exeepter miss Atoy de la tolérance accordée par la police de San-Francisco à mille femmes au moins, américaines, françaises, allemandes et espagnoles, dont la conduite n'est guère plus édifiants. La députation, quoique désappointée dans son but, se retira hautement édifiée de l'équité du tribunal des barbares, qui pèse dans la même balance et avec les mêmes poids les femmes de la ville, de quelque contrée qu'elles arrivent.
21 Frederick A. Woodworth, a brother of Selim, was mentioned as Chinese vice-consul. and agent for the "China Boys" who participated in the memorial procession at the time of the death of President Polk (Alta, 1850, Aug. 28 11; 29 31). "The Honorable Mr. Woodworth, Chinese Mandarin in California," was mentioned in the Alta, 1851, Mareh 6 2%, and "Mr. Woodworth" was again named as the agent for the Chinese immigrants in the Alta, May 12 23. Mr. F. A. Woodworth, of San Franeiseo, a son of the Vigilante, Selim, E. Woodworth, told me that his father had no official rela- tion with the Chinese government.
22 Holinski, La Californie, 119. Atoy was considered very pretty. She spoke English and often wore Occidental dress. She was before the courts more than once for keeping a disorderly house ( Alta, 1851, March 6 %; 8 24 ; Nov. 9 24; Dec. 14 % ; Reminiscences of C. P. Duane, in San Francisco Examiner. 1881, Jan. 23 11). Norman As Sing was mentioned by James O'Mera in "The Chinese in Early Days," Overland Monthly, ser. 2, III (1884), 478.
320
Vigilance Committee of 1851
For some reason that is not stated, the Vigilance Committee of Stockton sent to San Francisco a young man named Daniel Jenks, who had stolen a thousand dollars from a resident of Jack- sonville. Papers forwarded with the prisoner showed that he had borne a good character up to the time of the robbery. In spite of the fact that a mass meeting in Jacksonville recommended a whipping, the committee which transmitted the evidence advised that merey should be shown "in consideration of the youth and previous good character of the accused, his bodily weakness, and the fact that this crime was in all probability his first offense." Jenks was quickly discharged without receiving any punishment at the hands of the Committee of San Francisco.23
False clues were sometimes followed with amusing conse- quences. One paper is solemnly endorsed as the record of the case of "Mary St. Clair against Hat & Boots found at foot of Mission St." The "Hat & Boots" were discovered weighted with bricks in the mud at low tide, and were so suggestive of murder that the Committee interrogated every livery man in town in quest of a carriage which had been seen to linger near the spot. The investigation showed that the water-soaked articles were indeed tokens of a crime, but of one that was already an old story. The carriage had been hired by two women who were inmates of the resort where Pollock had been killed on June 22. His clothing poignantly reminded them of the tragedy of his death, and they had therefore attempted to afford it a decent sepulcher beneath the waters of the bay.2+
Other minor cases were investigated by the Committee, but it is unnecessary to mention here all the people who were arrested, as a summary of Vigilance activity will appear in a later chapter.
The courts were still carefully watched during July and August. In one case the Committee was particularly interested -- the trial of Charles Duane, a notorious bully and an unseru-
23 Papers, 510-517.
24 See supra, p. 242; Papers, 382-384; Alta, 1851, June 23 34.
321
Adventures in Crime
pulous ward politician, who has already been introduced in these pages as an ally of Broderick at the time of Jenkins' execution. In March, 1851, Duane had been tried for shooting a man named Fayolle. The jury had disagreed and the case had not come up again until the last of June, when it was dismissed because the necessary witnesses had left town. About a month later Duane, abetted by Ira Cole, made an unprovoked attack on Frank Ball, a member of the Committee, alleging that the latter had acted offensively while serving on the jury which had tried him. For this assault he was arrested. Much feeling attended the subse- quent trial, at which members of the Committee were excluded from jury service. Duane was convicted and sentenced to a year's imprisonment. While his lawyers were seeking to appeal the case Governor MeDougal issued a pardon, and refused to make public his reasons for taking such a step in the face of positive proof of guilt.25 The papers announced the pardon with great indignation, and the grand jury, which was then in session, went into court with the request that it be discharged, declaring that it was useless for jurymen to spend time and to risk the vengeance of criminals in seeking to convict felons who were so promptly set at liberty.26 Judge Campbell refused the request, but the incident clearly indicates the helplessness of the law-abiding citizens in the face of existing conditions. The Committee issued an order for Duane's arrest, but it was re- turned with the report that he was supposed to have left the state on the steamer for Panama.27 He thus escaped punishment at the hands of the Committee of 1851, although he was less fortunate in 1856, when he was banished from California in spite of his powerful political friends.28
25 Alta, 1851, March 23 %; court reports March 25-27; June 27 34; Papers, 96.
26 Alta, 1851, Sept. 10 24.
27 Papers, 590.
28 See Papers, Index under "Duane"; also Index of Popular Tribunals. The case was frequently mentioned in the Herald and the Alta, July 22 to
322
Vigilance Committee of 1851
The Committee watched the progress of legal affairs not only to insist upon punishment of the guilty but also to defend the innocent. At the instance of Sheriff Hays an investigation was instituted into the case of John Williams, who was serving a sentence in the county jail under conviction of an assault with intent to kill. When the Committee decided that the act was one of justifiable self-defense it successfully petitioned the gov- ernor for the prisoner's release.29
This chapter was introduced by the statement that the mem- bers of the Committee of Vigilance had little interest in criminal psychology, but it should not close without remarking that the subject appealed to at least one observer of their activities. This was "Doctor" Collyer, known as the "Moddle artist man,''30 who exercised his talents in a museum of anatomy of question- able reputation. This enterprising phrenologist desired to earn an honest penny as a by-product of Vigilante justice, and ad- vertised a lecture on the "Anatomy of Crime," which is further explained in the following communication :31
To the President and Members of the Executive Committee of the Vigilance Committee of San Francisco:
Gentlemen: Tomorrow evening (Wednesday) I propose delivering a lecture on the "Anatomy of Crime," illustrated by the skulls of Jenkins, Stuart, Mckenzie, and Whittaker.
Should you feel interested in the physiology and philosophy of the causes of mental action which prompted these men to pursue an evil course in life, I will be most happy for you to accept an invitation, which I now tender you, to form a part of my audience.
Yours, etc., ROB. H. COLLYER.
September 9, 1851.
It is a matter of regret that the press failed to report the success of this edifying entertainment.
Aug. 1, and again Sept. 5. Duane wrote some "Recollections" which rau in the Sunday edition of the San Francisco Examiner, 1891, Jan. 9; 16; 23; . Feb. 6; 20; 27; March 13; 20; 27; April 3; 17; May 8. They were abso- lutely unreliable, in so far as they dealt with the Vigilance Committee of 1851. 29 Papers, 216-218. 30 Papers, 49.
31 This letter is missing from the files, and is reprinted from Popular Tribunals, 1, 392. The lecture was advertised in the Alta, 1851, Sept. 8 3%.
CHAPTER XV POLITICS AND REORGANIZATION
The deaths of Stuart, Whittaker, and Mckenzie, the incar- ceration of Adams and Jimmy from Town, and the banishment or voluntary departure from the country of Kay, Duane, and half a dozen others, effectually disintegrated the Sydney gang that had so long terrorized the community, and resulted in a marked diminution of crimes of violence throughout the state.1 The attention of the Committee continued to be occupied with the men still in custody, who were chiefly minor offenders or immigrants under investigation. Twenty or thirty of these cases were noted in the records during the four weeks following the last execution, and decisions show that a little over half of the suspects were discharged and that the remainder were sent out of California.
As the conseiousness of social security increased the question arose whether or not the Committee of Vigilance should continue to exercise an active supervision over public affairs. Some mem- bers felt that the excuse for their organization terminated with the relief of the emergency that had called them together ;2 some, notably Stephen Payran, thought that the association should con- tinne unchanged for "all time,"3 while a small group wished to prolong the influence of the leaders of the body by placing them in office at the approaching September election.
On Saturday, August 23, a "Meeting of Citizens" was held in the rooms of the Committee of Vigilance, and a committee was appointed to nominate candidates for the local offices.+
1 See the discussion of criminal conditions, infra, p. 388.
2 See resignation of E. M. Earl, Papers, 630.
3 Papers, 632. 4 Papers, 548.
324
Vigilance Committee of 1851
A second meeting took place on Monday evening, but there is no statement to show where the adjourned gathering was held. At that time a ticket was decided upon, and an address to the voters of the city was adopted. The latter was in the form of resolutions which declared that the one hope of civic regener- ation lay in more general devotion to the ordinary duties of citizenship, and in the election of fit officials, irrespective of party affiliations.5 The communication was dignified and force- ful, frank in its acknowledgment of social shortcomings in the past, but hopeful for better standards in the future. Although it was signed by fourteen members of the Committee, the society officially and publicly disavowed the action on the ground that political activity would be ruinous to the work for which it had been organized,6 and. the further use of headquarters for any outside purpose was forbidden. In spite of this corporate atti- tude, members of the Committee, as individuals, pushed the campaign. The papers of the twenty-eighth published an in- dorsement of the ticket, and a call for a ratification meeting, signed by two hundred and three citizens, among whom were at least seventy-nine members of the Committee of Vigilance. On August 29 over fifteen hundred voters met and pledged them- selves to support the non-partisan tieket, which presented nine candidates for the legislature, eleven for county offices, and twelve for township positions. An exact analysis of the person- nel is difficult, as the official returns did not indicate the affili- ations of the township nominees, but the Alta said that the ticket as a whole included eight Whigs, twelve Democrats, and twelve Independents.7 For the legislature and the county positions, the non-partisans made seven entirely independent nominations and indorsed three Whigs and ten Democrats. The Evening Picayune, a Whig paper, immediately charged that the whole
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.