USA > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco > San Francisco, a history of the Pacific coast metropolis, Volume II > 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 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73
A Bank Twice Despoiled
History may not repeat itself, but the infirmities of men do produce extraor- dinary parallels which might easily be passed off for repetitions. The wrecking of the Safe Deposit Company by Brown and Bartnett after the depression of 1907 furnishes an extraordinary instance of criminal coincidence, because the institu- tion whose depositors they robbed had been victimized by the man who founded the bank of which the Safe Deposit Company was the successor. J. C. Dun- can, the president of the bank on the corner of California and Montgomery streets in the basement of which were established the first safe deposit vaults in San Fran- cisco, disappeared on October 8, 1877. Examination disclosed the fact that the institution was insolvent, owing its depositors $1,213,000. Warrants for the arrest of the would be absconder were issued, charging him with embezzlement. He was caught, after making two unsuccessful attempts to escape by sea, in a dressmaker's rooms concealed in the framework of a bureau, from which all the interior fittings had been removed. Duncan received four trials which disclosed mismanagement, misappropriation and misrepresentation, but in each instance the jury disagreed and he was finally discharged.
Occasionally a lawyer of distinction would array himself on the side of justice and win popular applause. A notable instance of this kind was the action of W. H. L. Barnes in the "Crusader" case in 1874, in which he secured the conviction of a couple of officers who had brutally treated sailors. The case attracted world wide attention and King Oscar of Sweden bestowed knighthood upon Barnes for the part he took in bringing the men to justice. The action against the "Cru- sader's" officers was due to a movement started by Henry George, while editor of the "Evening Post," a year earlier. On September 27, 1873, the ship "Sunrise" entered the port, and the captain reported the loss of three sailors on the voyage. Investigation by a reporter of the paper disclosed that the captain and second mate were guilty of the most atrocious cruelty, and that their favorite method of
Fighting for Abused Seamen
VIENNA GARDEN, NORTHWEST CORNER OF SUTTER AND STOCKTON STREETS, IN 1880
R
623
SAN FRANCISCO
securing prompt action from the crew was by knocking the sailors down with iron belaying pins. Some of the evidence pointed to the lost sailors having been mur- dered. The stories related by the "Post" forced the federal grand jury to action, and that body found numerous indictments. George induced Barnes to assist in the prosecution, and the captain was convicted and sentenced to four years im- prisonment, while the first and second mates were subjected to fines and the owners were compelled to pay damages to the abused crew, which however, amounted to only $50 a piece, excepting in one case where the sum was made $300. The trial in the federal court consumed nearly a month, and was followed with the greatest interest, but the sensation speedily subsided.
It is claimed that the "Sunrise" trials started the movement which finally made the life of a sailor on shipboard more bearable than it was during the period when officers dealt with their crews as they saw fit, undeterred by fear of having to account for their actions. For several years after the "Sunrise" affair the doings of sailors ashore and afloat occupied public attention. Practices which had gone on unchecked for years were exposed by the newspapers and legislation demanded. The offense of shanghaing was frequently committed on the water front, and oc- casionally the person unwillingly coerced into the performance of a seaman's duties would prove to be of sufficient importance to cause a commotion and inquiry. Most of these victims of summary engagements, however, were men who failed to com, plain of the indignity to which they had been subjected and their disappearance was scarcely noted. When an exposure was made its effect was to cause the careful to shun the water front, the usual field of operations of the crimps, and no reform of consequence was effected until several years later, when the Seaman's Union, cooperating with officials in the enforcement of the United States shipping laws succeeded in measurably abating the practice, and another equally vicious which was carried on by unscrupulous conductors of sailors' boarding houses who had no hesitation about delivering over careless seamen, who had involved themselves in debt to captains who were willing to make up a crew without inquiring under what conditions they were obtained.
Queerly enough the practices of the sailor boarding house keeper were as strongly denounced by the British shipping interest, as by the friends of seamen operating in San Francisco. It was charged that the sailors of ships arriving in the port were induced by the boarding house keepers to desert, which was doubt- less true, although it would seem that the great discrepancy between the wages paid to seamen shipping from American ports and those paid to sailors who had signed in England would prove sufficient temptation to British seamen to desert without other incitement. It was no unusual occurrence for vessels arriving in San Francisco harbor in the days when it was filled with fleets of grain carriers, whose crews had signed for absurdly low wages compared with those ruling in this country to lose a number of their seamen. As soon as the latter learned of the possibilities of better remuneration they absconded. And it often happened that a ship master, compelled to lie in the harbor awaiting a cargo, found it cheaper to promote desertion by making it uncomfortable for the crew, rather than main- tain them on board in idleness on pay, even though the latter was small. Hence the necessity of finding new crews when cargoes were obtained, and these were often provided in the irregular manner mentioned, with the full connivance of owners.
Effect of the "Sunrise" Trials
The Shanghaing Practice
624
SAN FRANCISCO
Sailors and the Barbary Coast
Reformatory Efforts that Failed
The occasional disorderliness of sailors is responsible for the impression that sea ports are more addicted to vice and crime than other cities, but an examination of the criminal records of San Francisco do not disclose any evidence which sup- ports the assumption that the seafaring element contributes largely to the prison population, or that it provides much work except for the inferior courts. Sailors cause crime, but they are oftener the victims than offenders. It cannot even be said that the resorts which they frequent when ashore are created for their benefit, or that they are called into existence to enable criminals to prey upon the unwary tar who is "out for a time." The locality known as the Barbary coast earned its bad reputation long before it received the name which suggests the seafaring class. As early as 1851 the "Annals" of San Francisco relate that the quarter affected by the criminal classes "lay around Clarke's Point, in Broadway, Pacific street and the immediate vicinity," and that even at that time "the police hardly dared venture into the neighborhood. When they attempted to apprehend some criminal there they went in force." The location described is no longer a haunt for many crim- inals, as the most of that class find it easier to secrete themselves in less public places ; but a proportion of the element is established there and preys upon Jack, whose worst offense usually is making "rough house" in the course of which he generally becomes the sufferer. Jack's patronage contributed to the support of the groggeries and brothels in which the Barbary coast abounded in early days as now, but it forms but a small part of the whole, and he cannot fairly be held re- sponsible for a blot which has existed for more than sixty years, and has been tolerated largely because it is believed something of the sort is indispensable to a seaport.
It is human to attempt to fix the responsibility for crime by holding some par- ticular cause or set of causes accountable for its prevalence. A community rarely takes the blame on itself even though the evidence is overwhelming that it is due to its carelessness and disregard of the necessity of exercising perpetual vigilance to check or overcome the criminal propensity. When San Francisco in 1851 was agitated because of the failure to enforce the laws its people had the remedy in their own hands, but they failed to apply it, and continued inactive until the Vig- ilance Committee of 1856 swept technicalities aside and secured rough justice by a resort to extra legal methods. In 1851 the editor of the "Daily Herald" was fined for contempt by a judge named Levi Parsons, because he denounced the failure of the courts to check crime. The offending newspaper man was William Walker, who afterward engaged in a filibustering expedition against Mexico and later in Nicaragua. He refused to pay the fine imposed and was committed to jail by Par- sons. There was a popular outburst and a big indignation meeting and Walker was released by the superior court. Later the legislature tried to impeach Par- sons but found the evidence insufficient. Analysis of the sentiment which caused the popular outburst discloses that it was not nearly so much due to recognition of the fact that the courts were corrupt and inefficient as it was to resentment at what was regarded as interference with freedom of speech.
Freedom of Speech
That no good result could be expected from an exhibition of indignation which was not directed at crime itself apparently was not perceived by the indignant people who had come to regard an infringement of personal liberty as a graver matter than the correction of manifest evils. The ebullition was a flash in the pan. It was not followed by persistent effort and no reform was effected or even
625
SAN FRANCISCO
attempted. The discussion degenerated into absurdities equalling those of the early theologians over the meaning of a word. The bar, which might have settled the matter, divided, but the major part was for the sacredness of precedent, and bitterly resentful against what it regarded as attempted interference with the orderly procedure of the courts and the supremacy of the law. It refused to recog- nize that adherence to forms was impeding the enforcement of the law and render- ing the purpose for which laws are enacted impossible of accomplishment.
This attitude was not due to inferior capacity, or to the presence at the bar of San Francisco of an exceptional number of corrupt or indifferent lawyers. De- spite the amusing stories told about the lack of qualifications of some of the earliest judges, and others concerning the eccentricities of practitioners, the reputation of the bar has stood high, and its personnel has compared favorably since the days of the alcaldes with that of any other city in the Union. Its defects were those of the profession throughout the United States. It was too devoted to the form and had too little regard for the substance of the law, and the object for which laws are made. Procedure had become a fetich, and the fear that departure from it would impair the fabric, and perhaps undermine the foundations of society caused San Francisco lawyers to underrate the gravity of a pressing evil. By seeking to avert one trouble they precipitated another. The advocates of law and order who in 1856 resisted the rising indignation against forms were not actuated by corrupt motives, but their course was responsible for the uprising in which all law was swept aside, but which, fortunately for the community, did not in the sweeping destroy order. Indeed, parodoxical as it may seem, it was defiance of the laws supposed to be made for the preservation of order which secured for the distressed San Franciscans the boon of order, and that fact has always been pleaded in jus- tification of the Vigilante uprising of 1856.
These observations apply equally to a later as to the earlier date, and they are still applicable. The community in its collective capacity is responsible for the failure of the laws. Its negligence in the years preceding 1856 and its indifference at times since then explain why confessed murderers are able to occupy the at- tention of the courts for years, and escape punishment at last, and why public and other thieves go unwhipt of justice. But as leaders and moulders of thought members of the bar through their failure to devote themselves to the work of reformation may fairly be charged with a greater degree of remissness than those who only follow impulse which oftener than otherwise is misdirected and for that reason comes to naught. From the beginning San Francisco has had able and bril- liant lawyers, and many of them have enjoyed the confidence of the community through periods longer than is assigned to a generation. They cannot be attributed to the 1849-1861 or the 1861-1871 eras, nor that which witnessed the complete revision of the constitution which was the organic law when they commenced their careers. Their services in many cases extended through all three periods. The scope of this history does not permit extended biographical notice, but it is essen- tial to the establishment of the fact that the bar of San Francisco never lacked the talent to accomplish that which reformers have vainly endeavored to bring about, to show that from 1849 to the present day able and earnest men have prac- ticed in our courts who have neglected the higher duty imposed upon them as officers of the court, to labor for the general welfare, and have instead devoted
The San Francisco Bar
The Bar Neglects Its Duty
626
SAN FRANCISCO
themselves to the furtherance of individual interests rather than those of the community.
Career of E. D. Baker
Perhaps the most brilliant, if not the ablest member of the San Francisco bar was Colonel E. D. Baker, whose oratory and death on the battlefield made him a national figure. Baker arrived in San Francisco in 1852. His scholarly attain- ments exhibited in a course of lectures in which he showed great erudition won for him a wider recognition than is usually gained by the lawyer until he has had years of practice. His inclination ran to politics and in 1859 when he was defeated in a contest for a seat in the house of representatives he went to Oregon and within a year that state sent him to the United States senate, in which body he sat at the outbreak of the Civil war. He left the forum for the battlefield, and was killed at Ball's Bluff, one of the first engagements of the rebellion, while leading his regiment. He was an eloquent speaker and had the power only possessed by the real orator to move an audience. His orations are masterpieces in their way, full of poetry and fire, and are as readable to-day, as they were on the occasions of their delivery. His body was brought to the City and interred in Lone Mountain cemetery, the funeral being made the occasion of a great demonstration.
Able Lawyers of Early Days
Less brilliant, but a man of solid attainments was Hall McAllister, who practiced continuously from 1849 down to a recent date, his position at the bar always being among the very foremost. He was an acute analyst, a student and a man of great courtesy which he extended even to the witness in the box. He was not remarkable as a speaker, but had a convincing method with a jury growing out of his thorough knowledge of the subjects he undertook to discuss. Joseph P. Hoge, another of the early lawyers who continued in practice through the Seventies, and was president of the Constitutional Convention of 1879, com- menced his career as an editor, served in congress from an Ohio district and was a strong advocate of "fifty-four forty" when the Oregon boundary question was up in that body. Hoge, like Baker, had a strong inclination for politics, but after his arrival in California in 1853 he devoted himself closely to his profession and was entrusted with many important cases. He ranked high as a corporation lawyer, and his services were eagerly sought in difficult cases. His partner, Samuel M. Wilson, made a specialty of mining law, an important branch of practice for many years. The firm was reputed to enjoy the confidence of more millionaire clients during the Seventies than any other in the City. Wilson had the dual quality of being as convincing before a jury as in the closet. He worked up his cases thor- oughly and relied upon clearness of presentation rather than oratory to win.
John B. Felton, who arrived in San Francisco in the spring of 1854, was a man of varied activities, and his name appears in many connections in the annals of the City. He had many important cases and was reported to be in the enjoy- ment of very large fees. Felton was an extensive reader, but not a close student, depending on his nimble intellect rather than on thorough knowledge to win his cases. He was the attorney of Limantour, who attempted to grab the greater part of San Francisco by means of a fraudulent land grant. Felton was politically ambitious, and entered the campaign for the United States senatorship against Newton Booth, but failed to achieve success. Less brilliant than the man who won the prize certain energetic qualities possessed by Felton would have made him a more desirable representative in the upper house of congress, but his affiliation with great corporations made him unavailable. Felton pursued his practice well into
A Lawyer of Varied Activities
627
SAN FRANCISCO
the Eighties, dying in 1889. Lorenzo Sawyer who came to the City a year earlier, was elected city attorney in 1854. He early showed an inclination for the bench, but did not attain his desire until after experiencing defeat at the polls. He was elected to the supreme court of the state and some of the decisions written by him are pronounced models of patient investigation. In 1869 he was appointed judge of the United States circuit court, in which capacity he frequently displayed the qualities which had won distinction for him on the state supreme bench.
Among the lawyers of early days was Peter H. Burnett, the first governor of the state, and who enjoyed in addition to that distinction the extraordinary one of resigning the office. Burnett was not the nominee of a regular convention. He was put forward by Colonel Stevenson and was declared the nominee for governor of the democratic party, was elected December, 1849, and resigned January, 1851. After his resignation he took up the practice of the law in San Francisco, but only long enough to raise sufficient money to extinguish certain obligations he had incurred in Missouri. Burnett was a man of positive convictions and in the Vigilante days arrayed himself on the side of the Law and Order party and spoke fearlessly against the committee. He was appointed supreme judge by Governor Johnson in 1857. In 1863 he assisted in founding the Pacific bank and after that date ceased to practice. Niles Searles, a contemporary of Burnett, had an inter- esting life, but can hardly be classed as a San Francisco lawyer, although in the latter part of his career he had some important city cases. He was appointed chief justice by Governor Bartlett in 1889. Searles' first case in California was gained while he was a waiter in a restaurant. A singular incident in his career was the abandonment of his profession during several years following 1864, when he went to New York and carried on the patrimonial farm. Searles was one of the early "Know Nothings," and the fact militated against his political ambitions in after life.
John T. Doyle, who was probably in continuous practice longer than any of the more prominent of the lawyers who came to the state in pioneer days arrived in the City in 1851. In 1850 he had been superintendent of the company which purposed digging a canal through Nicaragua, and thus gained an insight into trans- portation matters which resulted in his selection by Governor Irwin in 1876 to be one of the Railroad Commission of which Stoneman, afterward governor, was a member. Doyle was by all odds the most practical man on the commission, his associates Stoneman and Smith being content to let him do the work. Doyle was an indefatigable investigator and had the virtue of persistence in a marked de- gree. The report of the commission of 1876, submitted to the legislature of 1877- 78 was chiefly written by him. It was extremely voluminous, and the railroad de- rided it as a farago of nonsense, but many of the principles advocated by Doyle have since been accepted. Later, in his legal capacity, Doyle made a vigorous fight for the foreign stockholders of the Central Pacific. His facility with the pen made him a formidable antagonist, and he was as cordially detested by the rail- road managers as any man in California. Doyle was also chiefly instrumental in securing for the Catholic diocese of San Francisco a large sum from the Mexican Mission "pious fund," after a long litigation in the course of which he became so thoroughly acquainted with the early history of California that he was recognized as an authority.
Lawyers Who Abandoned the Profession
An Antagonist of Raliroad Monopoly
628
SAN FRANCISCO
Alexander Campbell, a pioneer lawyer whose career in San Francisco com- menced in 1849, and who continued to practice in the City until a few years ago, when he retired to Los Angeles, where he died recently at the ripe age of 91, was among the lawyers who ranged themselves on the side of the Law and Order party. He was a man of integrity, like many others who opposed the extra legal methods adopted by the Vigilance Committee, and had no sympathy with the rogues and the politicians who were causing the trouble which resulted in the upheaval. He had a clear mind and depended on plain statement rather than rhetoric in ad- dressing a jury. He was thoroughly versed in the English common law, and had made a study of the libel laws of Great Britain and the United States, and his services were sought on that account.
The only California lawyer who attained to a seat on the supreme bench of the United States in the early days was Stephen J. Field, whose career as a lawyer and as a justice of the supreme court of the United States are closely interwoven with the history of the state. Field was a brother of David Dudley and Cyrus West Field. He found his way to California in December, 1849, and was elected alcalde of Marysville three days after his arrival in that then bustling mining camp. His political predilections carried him into the assembly of which body he was a member in 1850, and in which he took a leading part in the framing of the codes. The passage of the Practice Act is attributed to him, and it is related that it was never read except by title and that its six hundred sections were adopted under suspension of the rules and that the completed work was signed by the governor on the assumption and assurance of Field that it was all right. The story of Field's career is more illustrative of the condition of the bar of California than that of the City. During the period between his arrival in California and the date of his appointment by Lincoln in 1863 to the supreme court, the most of his time was spent in the interior, but subsequently he came to be more representa- tive of San Francisco and its peculiar interests. In early life he figured in nu- merous political quarrels. On one occasion he challenged B. F. Moore of Tuo- lumne, David Broderick being his second. Moore averted an encounter by declar- ing that as a candidate for congressional honors he could not take part in a duel. It was arranged that Field should arise in his seat, be recognized by Broderick, who was president pro tem of the senate, and denounce Moore as a liar and coward. As usual there were factions who went to the senate chamber armed, but the expected fracas did not occur, because Moore deemed it discreet to read a retraction. As a member of the United States supreme court Field was often heard from, his industry leading him to write voluminous reports. In his exalted position at Washington he was not highly regarded by the people of California who persisted in styling him a friend of the railroad. His strong corporation leanings were manifested in many of his decisions and his ability, while never questioned, was always exercised on their side as against the people.
Henry E. Highton a lawyer, who arrived in San Francisco the year the Consolidation Act was framed, like several other San Francisco practitioners had some newspaper experience. He was neither a profound nor a successful lawyer, but had facility of expression which he acquired before his admission to the bar in 1860. He was one of the very few lawyers who thought it worth their while to raise their voices against the evils of special legislation, and assailed the Con- solidation Act on the ground that it gave too much power to the legislature. High-
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.