selves together at the California Engine House for the purpose of punishing incendiaries and other criminals." There was no direct indorsement, but the editor took pains to explain that the meeting was not a mere mob.

nent men.

A common thief, one Jenkins, was tried and convicted by the committee, which consisted of more than one hundred and eighty-four promiThe trial took place between 10 and 12 o'clock one night. He had been discovered stealing a safe on Long Wharf on June 10, and the verdict to hang him-eighty or more men being on the jury-was unanimous. Two hours after the finding of the verdict the man was dead. On June 12 the coroner's jury brought in a verdict that blamed two or three men of the committee, whereupon a statement was published and signed by one hundred and eighty-nine prominent citizens, and in this they freely confessed that all whose names were signed were equally implicated in the hanging of Jenkins. Nothing ever came of the confession, for there was no public sentiment that would have strongly blamed or convicted the members of the committee.

During June, July, and August, the committee was busy with similar work. It caught and hanged the true Stuart, and drove many ruffians and Sydney "coves" from the state. In August the organization barely missed an open collision with the authorities, but diplomacy averted this trouble and the object-lesson of the committee's work is said to have been a deterrent to criminals. It certainly made a deep impression on the minds of the people at large. A study of the social evolution of San Francisco compels the conclusion that the work of the first vigilance committee made possible the organization and labors of the second, the famous committee of 1856. Many of the members of the first organization were leading spirits in the second-men like William T. Coleman, an active spirit in both organizations.

By the autumn of 1855 San Francisco began to realize that much of its social life was still crude, even wicked. During 1855 there had been, it is said, more than five hundred homicides in the city, and it is claimed that the law was powerless to punish those who had committed these crimes against life and society. Everywhere upright citizens denounced these deeds, though few were found with the courage to denounce the criminals by name.

Though it is probably true, as William H. Mills says, that any community that is obliged to establish a vigilance committee thereby indicts itself for many sins of omission, the other truth remains that, in the case at hand, ballot-box stuffing and other forms of corruption were exasperating beyond tolerance.

One should understand that the best business men were not in a mood to blame themselves, for the existence of grave wrongs. They forgot that if juries were bad it was often because the eager desire to make money absorbed men of affairs, who dodged jury duty and made way for bribery. That there was much iniquity in high places, is doubtless true-and some of this the honest citizen would have been put to his wits to remedy, yet it can not be gainsaid that honest and able men like Judge Hager and District Attorney Byrne were in office-and one of the offenders that paid the penalty in 1856, under "popular justice," was awaiting trial in Judge Hager's court at the time the committee seized him and assumed superior jurisdiction.

A clear-voiced call to rectify existing evils came through the San Francisco Bulletin, then edited by a former banker, James King, or James King "of William," as he signed his name. He established his paper in October, 1855, and so vigorous was his policy that several enlargements were required within a few months. His paper was popular all over the state and he was looked upon as a brave deliverer of the people, one that spoke words already long overdue. Though he made himself popular with the best people, he was despised by the wicked.

The crisis that cost him his life and that plunged the community into the perplexities of the vigilance committee days, came in May, 1856, when King was shot down in the street by James Casey, then an editor, a supervisor, and a man with much political power. Six days later King died, and soon thereafter the great Vigilance Committee of 1856 was organized. The story of its career, as told by Charles James King, surviving son of the martyred editor, is in the pages that follow. Mr. King has made a life-study of the events that culminated in the killing of his father, and the account is interesting.

CHAPTER VII.

THE VIGILANCE COMMITTEES.

By Charles James King.

INTERESTING REMINISCENCES OF THE SON OF THE MARTYRED EDITOR OF THE OLD SAN FRANCISCO BULLETIN HOW DESPERATE MEN PUT THE LAW ASIDE AND TRANSFORMED SAN FRANCISCO INTO A DESPERADOES' PARADISE-INSIDE FACTS ABOUT THE GREAT UPRISING OF CITIZENS THAT IMPROVISED A COMMITTEE TO TRY AND PUNISH MEN FOR THEIR CRIMES.

The history of the Vigilance Committee of 1851 and that of 1856, organized in the City of San Francisco, has no parallel in American history.

It was composed of American citizens, imbued with the love of country, and with that crystallized idea of the centuries, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

To properly understand the state of affairs that in an American city demanded such action on the part of its citizens, we must look to the causes that brought about this uprising on the part of a people so loyal to all the traditions of their country.

I propose to show these, as seen by one who lived here through all those exciting times, as I arrived in San Francisco in May, 1851, when but seven years of age, and was a witness of the events that took place then, though those of 1856, when I was five years older, and because the committee's formation was on account of my father's (James King of William) assassination, were more deeply impressed on my mind and life.

All that I remember of my father is confined to those five years, extending through the history of both the committees of 1851 and 1856. I was so young in 1848, when he left for California, that I remember scarcely anything of him, until my arrival in San Francisco.

I could not have been with him more than I was, had I known how few the years were destined to be in which I was to see him on earth.

Every moment I could spare from school, I chose rather to be with him than elsewhere. When he was a banker, I rode on my pony, each afternoon after school, to meet him at his bank, on the corner of Commercial and Montgomery streets, and was beside his buggy as he drove home, which was then on Jones street, between Lombard and Chestnut.

When he was editor of the Bulletin, for seven months, until his assassination, I used to visit his editorial rooms as often as I could go, and he used to tell his friends who happened to be there, that I knew everything in the paper, editorials, news and even the advertisements. Every evening after dinner, when I had finished my recitation in Latin, to him, I was accustomed with all the ardor of a youthful enthusiast to discuss, after my own fashion, the subjects of his editorials. and thus knew and realized the good cause of pure government in which he was engaged and for which his life was sacrificed.

At the close of the Mexican war, California became a part of the United States, by purchase, in the treaty of peace between the two countries. It was a long and weary journey of months to reach it from the eastern portion of our country, either by land or sea. Quite a number of Americans had already found their way here, so that in 1846 when the country was taken, they were able to give great assistance to Fremont and his men in its capture. The people readily acquiesed in the change of government, some like General M. G. Vallejo, contending that they had everything to gain and nothing to lose by becoming a part of the American Union.

The natives led a simple life, without much excitement. No steamer had ever yet ploughed the vast waters of the great Pacific Ocean. No transcontinental railroad had been built, and no lines of telegraph or ocean cable connected with Yerba Buena, now San Francisco, with any other part of the world.

The white wings of commerce had not turned, as they were soon destined to turn, toward the Golden Gate. One of our California poets thus describes them, in those days (from which they were so soon to be awakened), as follows:

Feeble and garrulous old men

Tell in the Spanish tongue

Of the good grand times of the Mission,
And the hymns that the Fathers sung;

Of the oil and the wine and the plenty,
And the dance in the twilight gray.
Ah! these-and the head shakes sadly-
Were good old times in Monterey.

The discovery of gold by J. W. Marshall, on January 24, 1848, soon changed all this, and thousands of men from all parts of the world came here. The business which the necessity of these travelers caused gave an impetus to commerce everywhere, and suitable inventions and contrivances followed.

Ocean travel was improved by steam navigation, and the comfort of passengers became more imperative from the sudden demand for transportation to this state. The demand also for abundance of food led to the canning of fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, etc., in larger quantities than had been required before, while eggs put down in lime, and butter, from the dairies of New York state, helped to supply those necessary articles for the home consumption.

Houses were built in sections, so as to be easily put together again, and shipped around Cape Horn, to this city, where many of them made comfortable residences for the accommodation of the early settlers.

While many good men of character and energy were here to make this state what it became, they were at first so engaged in their business as to take but little interest in politics. The drifting in of a large criminal class, who had served their terms in jails in all parts of the world, our own country included, soon became a menace to the peaceful business men. They were called "the Hounds," and had control of all the offices in their interest and for their protection. It thus soon became apparent that there was no redress in the courts. Crime unblushingly held up its head and was seldom punished because of the faithless administration of justice.

Matters had come to such a pass, that the better class of citizens on the 8th of June, 1851, organized the first Vigilance Committee by adopting the following:

CONSTITUTION.

"Whereas, It has become apparent to the citizens of San Francisco that there is no security for life and property, either under the regulations of society as it at present exists, or under the laws as now administered; therefore the citizens whose names are hereunto attached do unite themselves into an As