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 9
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
96
Vigilance Committee of 1851
of January 18, contained a sarcastic editorial expressing popular gratitude for the senator's parental solicitude, and characteriz- ing the communication as a well-meaning document which quite mistook the caliber of the community. The letter entrusted to Mr. Van Voorhies, which had been designed to forestall Benton's, was printed without comment on March 15, although a copy of it was in the hands of the governor some time before that date.21
These two letters are often eited as expressions of opposing views on the status of California. The "administration theory" upheld the survival of the Mexican laws, subject to change only by act of Congress, and administrated by the highest military officer in the district as was provided for in the Mexican system when a eivil governor was not in active service. Benton con- eurred with the administration in maintaining that the Mexican laws persisted until altered by the proper legislative authority, but he asserted that the American commanders had no power to administer those laws, and that in default of legitimate officials the people were left without government and had the right to provide organization for themselves. A third theory called the "Settler's theory" was held by some of the most prominent residents, who agreed with Benton that they had the right of self- government, but based that claim on the assumption that the Constitution of the United States had superseded the Mexican laws as soon as the treaty was ratified. They acknowledged that the power to legislate for the acquired territory was primarily vested in Congress, but felt that since the Congressional pre- rogative had not been exercised the people might temporarily assume the right of legislating for themselves. They contended. also, that even in case President Polk and Secretary Buchanan were correct in their theory, the de facto government of which they talked rested entirely upon the presumed consent of the governed, and the inhabitants of California were at liberty to
21 Browne, Debates, 277.
1
------------- - 1
İ
!
97
The Struggle for Organization
withhold their consent, and to adopt what laws they saw fit. Some historians identify the "Settlers' theory " with the "Benton theory," but as Benton opposed the doctrine of squatter sov- ereignty, and the "transmigratory function of the constitution," the two points of view were in fundamental disagreement.22 He was never acknowledged as a popular influence in California, and his "patronizing letter" was again scored in the Alta of July 19.
The proposed convention was finally postponed until August that full reports of the session of Congress might be received. In view of the long delay the delegates resigned, recommending the election of new representatives who should be vested with full power to frame a state constitution and to submit it to the people for ratification. It is interesting to note that this sug- gestion as to state organization appeared in the same issue of the Alta California (March 22, 1849) that printed the bill which embodied Senator Douglas' first scheme for state government in the territory acquired from Mexico.
Coincident with the impulse towards general provisional government there was an effort on the part of some of the larger communities to apply the method of self-organization to their own local problems, for the existing Mexican system proved more and more inadequate to the needs of the increasing population.
This was particularly true of San Francisco, which had about two thousand inhabitants.23 It will be remembered that a town council had been instituted by the alcalde and confirmed by Colonel Mason in July, 1847.24 That body had been empowered
23 For the varying opinions on the status of California at this time, see J. F. Rhodes, History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, I (1893), 93 et seq .; T. H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, 1854-1856, II, 713; Burnett, Recollections, 311-317, 327-334; Browne, Debates, 274-284; Royce, California, 247-254; Hittell, California, II, 712; Hunt, "Legal Status of California" as cited, 80-82.
23 Annals, 219.
24 See supra, p. 49. Even the alcaldes went to the mines in the summer of 1848. The council did not meet for five months, and special elections were called to fill the deserted posts (Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doc. 17, 593, 667; Annals, 205-207; Bancroft, California, V, 648-652).
98
Vigilance Committee of 1851
to serve until the close of the following year. An election for new officers took place in December, 1848, but the results were challenged on the ground that unqualified electors had been allowed to vote, and the old council refused to give place to the eouneil elect. A second election was called in January, and for a time the three separate bodies wrangled over the control of town affairs. The alealde, Doctor T. M. Leavenworth, also became a storm center of approval and dislike, and the arbitrary system in vogue grew so intolerable that a group of leading men resolved to wait no longer for constitutional authority, but to formulate for themselves a more efficient municipal government. Early in February they called a mass meeting to consider the difficulties between the rival councils, and in response about five hundred citizens gathered on the Plaza and adopted a new seheme of organization.25 They provided for the election of a legislative assembly with power to enact laws that harmonized with the Federal Constitution, and authorized three justiees of the peace to try civil and criminal eases according to the common law as recognized in the United States. February 21 was set for the new election, and a committee was appointed to ask for the resignation of the members of the old contesting couneils, who obligingly complied with the request.
Bancroft said that the assembly brought to the front a very respectable body of men, full of reform projects. One of their first aets was to appoint a committee to wait upon the senior military and naval commanders, and to ask their approval of the proceedings. Papers were sent them with particulars of the publie meetings and minutes of the first session of the assembly, and in a clear and dignified letter the committee recounted the difficulties and hardships entailed upon San Francisco by a
25 See Annals, 208, 219-220; Burnett, Recollections, 306-310; Bancroft, California, VI, 209-211. 273; Moses, Establishment of Municipal Govern- ment, 36-46. A. J. Ellis, A. J. Grayson, and R. A. Parker (Vigilantes of 1851) were members of the Assembly.
99
The Struggle for Organization
continuance of the arbitrary rule of an irresponsible alcalde.26 This document was one of the most interesting expositions of the popular mind at that period. It pointed out that nothing had been accomplished for civil improvement; that even the old Mexican institutions had lapsed ; that the American alcaldes had never understood or administered Mexican laws and had simply decided questions according to their personal bias; that the people, hitherto patient in the hope of speedy relief, were no longer willing to give that consent which was the indispensable support of the de facto government, and that, in such a situation, they had the right to gather in their primary capacity and to create a government to serve until it might be superseded by competent authority. It was the old resort to the reassembling of social elements by agreement among a particular group which felt that its previous organization was deficient or inoperative.
To the aggrieved citizens their position seemed unquestion- ably logical, but to the military commanders it was a menace to the integrity of the national authority and a possible step towards the establishment of the independent government decried by President Polk. In response to their petition for endorsement the citizens of San Francisco were therefore informed that as Congress alone had power to legislate for territories, the de facto government must persist until laws had been passed to replace it, and they were warned that "confusion and intricaey would inevitably result from establishing even the best government on a false basis."27 Undaunted by this disapproval, the assembly continued its work; held regular meetings, levied taxes, and enacted regulations.28 The office of alcalde was abolished, and the incumbent was asked to transfer his records to the senior justice of the peace. Leavenworth, however, appealed to the military authorities, who advised him to retain possession of his
26 Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doc. 17, pp. 728-735.
27 Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doc. 17, pp. 735-737.
28 See The Minutes of the Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the District of San Francisco, 1860.
100
Vigilance Committee of 1851
office and papers.29 A little later formal charges of malfeasance were preferred against him, and the governor suspended him from duty pending an investigation.30 Even this did not satisfy the legislative assembly, which was determined to assert its authority. On May 31 its sheriff forcibly seized the papers in the alcalde's office. One of the books preserved in the recorder's office in San Francisco breaks off abruptly with the pencilled note in Leavenworth's handwriting and over his signature : "Ilere the Hounds entered the alcalde's office and seized the records. A. Patterson and others entering a [illegible] Tally ho." The interrupted entry was the copy of a deed dated April 6, 1849, but the intrusion referred to was probably the raid of May 31.31 The next day the governor restored Leaven- worth to the full exercise of his duties.32 His order to that effect did not mention the raid, and the interval was very brief for communication with Monterey. A few days later, however, he called public attention to the assault on the alealde, asked for assistance in recovering the archives, and designated the "body of men styling themselves the Legislative Assembly of San Fran- cisco" as an illegal organization which should not be supported by law-abiding citizens.33
29 Minutes, 16; Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doc. 17, p. 727.
30 C'ong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doe. 17, pp. 758-760. Leavenworth ten- dered his resignation to take effect on May 15 ( Archives, "Unbound Does.,"' 56). He complained that the movement was one against the military gov- ernment, and that the press was all on the side of the insurgents (letter, May 29. ibid., 64-66). Commodore Jones, Captain J. L. Folsom, and Rod- man N. Price stated that Leavenworth was so nnpopular that he could not give satisfaction in anything (ibid., 55).
31 See O. C. Coy, Guide to the County Archives of California, 1919, p. 413; Ryan, Personal Adventures, II, 251-254; Buffum, Six Months, 114-119; copy of the order issued by Myron Norton, directing Sheriff J. C. Pulis to seize the papers (Archives, "Unbound Does., " 320-321) ; Leavenworth's report of the raid (ibid., 319). A. A. Green mentioned the return of the town records to the alcalde after he was reinstated (Life and Adventures of a '47-er, 1878, p. 24, MS in the Bancroft Library). For the story of the Hounds, see infra, p. 105.
32 Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doc. 17, p. 771.
33 Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doc. 17, pp. 773-774.
101
The Struggle for Organization
San Francisco was not the first nor the only community to experiment with local organization. When the residents upon the north side of the Bay of San Francisco met in Sonoma, February 5, 1849, for the purpose of electing delegates to the proposed constitutional convention, they adopted rules and reg- ulations for the control of the district until a permanent gov- ernment might be established. Nothing significant was accom- plished by this association, which dissolved when the members found that their course was disapproved by the authorities.34 Sacramento, as the most convenient point of departure for the northern mines, also felt the need of some government more effective than that of the alcaldes at Sutter's Fort. An initial meeting was held April 30, 1849, and subsequently a legislature of eleven members was elected, but it was afterwards decided that elaborate organization was unnecessary, and an alcalde and sheriff were chosen to preserve order in a district extending from the Coast Range to the Sierra Nevada Mountains.35 Had such distriet associations been countenanced by the governor, it is probable that they would have been formed in other localities, but he felt called upon to suppress them. In consequence each community was obliged to shift for itself.
All through the early months of 1849, while the Californians were hoping for favorable news from Washington, Colonel Mason maintained his official aloofness from the movement towards organization. By April 13, when Brevet-Brigadier General Ben- net Riley arrived to relieve him, the scheme for provisional government had lapsed through postponement, although it was evident that resentment against existing conditions was fomenting
31 Alta, 1849, March 1 1/3; Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doc. 17, p. 749.
35 The Placer Times, 1849, May 5, reported the organization. Burnett said the meeting was early in January ( Recollections, 294), but in the His- tory of Sacramento County, 47, it is stated that there was no form of govern- ment until the summer months. See also Sacramento Illustrated, Barber & Baker, publishers, 1855, p. 9; Bancroft, California, VI, 455.
102
Vigilance Committee of 1851
a spirit of aggressive self-assertion.36 The two officers reviewed the situation in careful consultation. They were not yet definitely informed of the plans of the Whig cabinet, but they were prob- ably aware of the futile attempts made in the late session of Congress to pave the way towards state organization. They decided that it would be well for the new governor to summon a convention to draw up a state constitution as soon as he might learn that Congress had actually adjourned without passing any bills that would affect the situation.37
The administration of Mason closed without the establish- ment of the government for which he had sincerely hoped, but as his aid, William T. Sherman, pointed out he left matters in California so disposed that a civil system was a matter of easy adjustment. For nearly two years he had held his slender reins of government over the turbulent forces in California, and pre- vented utter catastrophe and ruin. His task had been discour- aging and thankless. for his superiors had tacitly forbidden him to undertake any construetive work. while the people constantly blamed him for his failure to accomplish effective reforms. But he was not afraid of criticism. he was loyal to his idea of duty, and while all the world about him went mad over the pursuit of wealth, he never used his official position as a source of per-
36 The general discontent occasionally gave rise to rumors of a movement for independence. General Persifor F. Smith said that on his trip to Cali- fornia he encountered "some persons going out armed with Colonel Ben- ton's letter to set up a government for themselves" (Cong. Does., Ser. No. 373, Doc. 17, p. 710). E. O. Crosby said that an independent republic might have been attempted if California had not organized and been admitted MS Statement. 1878. pp. 52, 57). The attitude of the newspapers has been analyzed in a MS master's thesis. Sentiment in California for a Pacific Republic, 1843-1861. 1919, by Joseph Ellison, in the University of Califor- nia Library. See also Burnett, Recollections, 327-328; Bancroft, California, VI. 268 note 31; Hunt, "Legal Status," as cited, 73; Dorothy Hull, "'Movement in Oregon for the Establishment of a Pacific Coast Republic," Oregon Historical Society, Quarterly. XVII (1916), 177-200; H. E. Bolton, "Admission of California. " University of California Chronicle. XV (1913), 561.
37 Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573. Doc. 17, p. 748.
103
The Struggle for Organization
sonal profit. He left California shortly after his relief, and died of cholera, in St. Louis, in the summer of the same year.38
On or about the first of June Governor Riley received positive information that Congress had adjourned without creating a government for California.39 On June 3 he issued a procla- mation that summoned a constitutional convention to meet at Monterey on the first day of September, designated the electoral districts, the number of delegates from each, and the time and mode of their selection.40 The measures proposed by Riley were so like those of the amended bill which Senator Douglas had offered in the Senate, that it seems safe to infer that they must have been formulated with exact knowledge and careful repro- duction of the methods which had been considered at Washing- ton.41 The doenment antedated by a day the arrival in San Francisco of Thomas Butler King, who for some unexplained reason did not communicate with the governor until about the middle of the month.42 It is therefore improbable that the pres- enee of the President's special agent had any appreciable influ- ence on the plans for the convention.
In this proclamation the governor also made public the first official summary of the Mexican system which had supposedly been in force from the time of the American oceupation.43 He annonneed that in view of the months that would elapse before
3> See Bancroft, California, VI, 274; Hittell. California, II, 677; Sher- man, Memoirs, I. 65.
39 Cong. Docs .. Ser. No. 573, Doe. 17, p. 748; S. H. Willey, Transition Period, 1901, p. 85.
40 Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doc. 17, pp. 776-780.
41 Secretary of War Crawford wrote General Smith, April 3, 1849, that want of information on California conditions preelnded the possibility of special instructions, although no plan for an independent government could be sanetioned (Cong. Does., Ser. No. 549. Doc. 1, pp. 156-157). He wrote to Riley in a similar tenor, June 26, saying, at the same time, that it was the right of the people to form a plan of government, which might lead to their admission as a state (ibid., 160-161).
42 King, California : the Wonder of the Age, 7.
43 See supra, p. 24.
104
Vigilance Committee of 1851
any new government could be instituted, he would immediately put the native institutions into their "full vigor." To aecom- plish this purpose he ordered that when the people chose dele- gates for the constitutional convention they should also eleet alcaldes, justices of the peaee, and town eouneilmen, wherever sueh officials were not already installed, and should, in addition, elect the judges for the superior court, and the prefeets and sub-preferts authorized by the Mexican statutes.
The call for a convention aroused unexpected opposition. Some of the advocates of immediate organization protested that the governor had no business to infringe upon their right of self- government, even to the extent of setting a date for the convention, or allotting the number of delegates. This feeling was most loudly expressed in San Francisco, where there was much resentment over Riley's arraignment of the legislative assembly and his reinstatement of Alcalde Leavenworth ; but after some diseus- sion it was decided to accede to his suggestions, and to join in the general movement towards organization.44
Early in July the members of the legislative assembly, conscious of the governor's disapproval of their position, asked for an expression of popular opinion, and called for an election which should confirm or withdraw the authority that had been delegated to them. When this was held one hundred and sixty- seven votes were cast in their favor, and seven against them. The support was considered so inadequate that the assembly dissolved, leaving Leavenworth in possession of the field.45 The Annals of San Francisco, published in 1855, remarked of this situation :46
44 See Burnett, Recollections, 319-326; Hittell, California, II, 713-718; Bancroft, California, VI, 277-280; Willey, Transition Period, 86-89; F. J. Lippitt. "The California Boundary Question in 1849," Century, XL (1890), 795.
45 Annals, 223; Bancroft, California, VI, 211 note. Leavenworth again tendered his resignation on June 4 ( Archives, "Unbound Does.," 228; Cong. Docs., Ser. No. 573, Doc. 17, p. 774).
46 Annals, p. 223.
--- -
---
105
The Struggle for Organization
These various meetings and other proceedings narrated may possess little interest for the present inhabitants of San Francisco; but they certainly much excited those who dwelt in the town at the time of their occurrence.
And, indeed, for every student of California history they should have a profound interest as showing the strength of the current conviction that temporary organizations, adopted by the consent of the men immediately concerned, were legitimate forms of gov- ernment in erises where other systems were non-existent or inefficient.
Another illustration of the spirit which appealed to popular initiative in public affairs is furnished by the episode of the suppression of the "Hounds," a company of San Francisco des- peradoes who terrorized the eity in the summer of 1849. More than one writer on the period noted that the adventure of the Mexican War had enlisted among the New York Volunteers num- bers of rowdies, who flocked to the mines as soon as they were discharged, and there behaved so badly that in many places they were driven out of camp. Drifting back to San Francisco, they formed the nueleus of a criminal "gang," which adopted a sem- blance of military diseipline, formulated rules, elected officers, and established so-called headquarters in a large tent known as Tammany Hall.47 They often paraded the streets with music and banners, and their commissary was provisioned by raids upon stores and restaurants, which were forced to supply their demands and "charge it to the Hounds," as the marauders marched away with insolent laughter. Later they adopted the more respectable name of the San Franeiseo Society of Regula- tors, and Bancroft stated that Alcalde Leavenworth employed
47 See Popular Tribunals. I, 76-102; Annals, 553-561. Stanislaus Grabowski, a German author with a penchant for historieal novels, nsed the incident for the theme of Die Regulatoren von San Francisco, a story which showed some familiarity with the circumstances, but no personal acquaint- ance with San Francisco. It was also described in "La Californie dans les derniers mois de 1849," an article by Patrice Dillon, in the Revue des deux mondes, nouvelle periode, V (1850), 205-206.
106
Vigilance Committee of 1851
some of them in "carrying out the ends of justice."48 Be that as it may, they went far beyond any official sanction, and took advantage of the anti-alien sentiment of the community to make brutal attacks upon the foreigners of Latin American origin, many of whom lived under wretched and vicious conditions in the quarter known as Little Chili.
Hall McAllister, a distinguished lawyer of later days, has related the story in a dietation made at Baneroft's request. ITis account was in substantial agreement with that in the Annals of San Francisco, and with other original sources. Ile said :49
During the months of June and Jnly '49 there existed in San Francisco a band of men calling themselves "The Hounds, " consisting principally of the refuse of Col. Stevenson's regiment. The leader of this band of men was named Samuel Roberts. They committed various outrages, particularly during the month of July. On one Sunday they were especially violent, going about and robbing all the Chilenos they could find. . . . They .. . beat them, and shot one of them very badly in the body. ... Several of them, mounted on horseback, chased these Chilenos through the city and up Tele- graph Hill, shooting at them as they ran.
On Monday afternoon, the following day, Sam Brannan, Frank Ward, A. J. Ellis. Sam Ward, and various others formed a meeting upon the Plaza, at which Sam Brannan and Frank Ward made speeches, from the top of the small buildings then existing at the S.W. Corner of Kearny and Washington Sts. After the speeches, an organization was immediately had, and Captain [W. E. Spofford] was appointed Chief Marshal; and A. J. Ellis, Hall MeAllister, F. J. Lippitt and others were appointed Cap- tains, to organize a force to arrest these Hounds. They immediately went to work that afternoon and secured quite a number [nineteen] of them, among whom were Samuel Roberts, the leader of the band, who was arrested on board a schooner in the harbor. .. . A number of them were taken at their rendezvous, which was then situated just where Commercial comes into Kearney St. now, in a tent which they had there .... After the prisoners
4. Popular Tribunals, I, 78. J. H. Brown wrote that the Regulators originated with a group of about ten men who banded themselves together for the purpose of returning runaway sailors to their vessels ( Reminiscences, [78]). Sam Roberts, the leader, had been a member of Stevenson 's Regi- ment (Clark, First Regiment of New York Volunteers, 37). At one time the alcalde of San Francisco had employed him to administer publie corporal punishment to a mutinous sailor ( Alta, 1849. Aug. 9 %).
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.