The land of gold; reality versus fiction

by Hinton Rowan Helper

At this critical period, some of the settlers fortunately recollected a similar state of affairs in the country between the Mississippi and the Alleghanies, and the sharp but effective remedy which was then applied. They remembered how organized bands of robbers had infested the states and territories of the Mississippi Valley, how judges and constables and sheriffs had been connected with these infamous associations, how justice was perpetually defrauded of her dues, because juries composed of members of the same villainous fraternity could easily be packed; and how, finally, the honest portion of the community, exasperated beyond endurance by these repeated villainies, took the law in their own hands, and remorselessly hung and shot all the desperadoes who fell into their power, with the ultimate effect of restoring peace and good order.

The same evil demanded the same remedy. The Vigilance Committee was organized. It was composed of the best men in San Francisco, men who would have been the most zealous supporters of the law, had there been any law to support; men of firmness and resolution who were determined to have peace and security at all hazards. It was not exactly a secret society, but some sort of privacy was necessary to be observed. Were its agents generally known, not only would they be marked out for the secret vengeance of the vermin they were hunting down, but their vigilance would be more easily evaded, and the operations of the committee crippled.

The most important question which occurred to the committee, at its very formation, was the disposition to be made of the criminals arrested by its agents. They had no prisons at their command, and had no time to devote to the tedious formalities of law proceedings. Ropes, however, were at their disposal, and even California had trees enough to answer their purposes, except San Francisco, where the pulleys upon hoisting beams which projected from the warehouses afforded a very convenient substitute. Their code, therefore, necessarily resembled Draco’s. For graver crimes they hung their culprits, for minor offences they flogged them, rode them on rails, tarred and feathered them, and ordered them away from a settlement within a given time under penalty of sharper punishment. Their threats were generally punctually executed. Their principle was that of Mr. Carlyle—to get rid of rascality by exterminating the rascals.

The results of the proceedings of this committee were beneficial in the highest degree. Before its establishment, it was dangerous to walk the streets of San Francisco in broad daylight; after it had been in operation for a short time, that city became as safe as any upon the other sea-board. They retained their authority until a State government had been formed, its officers duly appointed, and its sovereignty proclaimed; after which they laid it down. Whatever may be thought of the organization, no one can accuse it of intentional injustice. Hasty they may occasionally have been, but deliberately wrong, never. The best tribute that could be paid to their honesty and efficiency was the general apprehension of the people on the occasion of the charge just alluded to. They dreaded the establishment of a government of law, and generally preferred the irresponsible action of the committee. It is also a well ascertained fact that California has never been so orderly as it was under their rule. Immediately upon their resignation, the rogues began to breathe more freely, and crime to increase.

We have already said that this committee has been harshly judged and unjustly condemned by persons who were imperfectly or not at all acquainted with the facts in the case. These very men, however, recognize the necessity and acknowledge the benefits of the Holy Vehm. They can see plainly enough that the robber barons “who spared not man in their anger nor woman in their lust,� who were a curse and a nuisance to all honest people, needed to be struck suddenly and without remedy by some invisible hand, which they could neither escape by flight, intimidate by threats, nor bribe with money. They cannot understand, however, that the plebeian scoundrels of California required the same sharp and summary punishments which were needed for the rascally noblemen of the dreaded Red Land of Westphalia. It is very easy for people who sit by their comfortable firesides and look out upon well-fed policemen patrolling the streets, conspicuous by their glittering star, to descant upon the beauties of law and order. The man, however, who has just been knocked down and robbed in San Francisco by a vagabond who cannot be brought to justice, has not so clear a perception of the necessity of resorting to a tribunal which is powerless to punish, or of appealing to a constable who is equally unable to protect him from injury. These things have a relative, not an actual value; they are, or, perhaps I ought to say, they were worthless in California. A cockney traveler might as well take a London policeman to Sebastopol to prevent the Cossacks from taking liberties with his sacred person.

The main thing every where to be attained is order, that honest men may do their work in peace and quietness. If law gives them this, well and good. Law must be supported. If law is powerless, then the rifle, or the knife, or the rope must take its place. In so unsettled a state of society, as that which existed in California at the time of which we are speaking, the first thing is to strike terror into the ruffians. That must be done, let the cost be what it may. After the power of the honest man is established on a firm basis, then it is time enough to organize courts of law.

The quiet and honest settlers of California were fully convinced of the necessity of this committee, and zealously supported it. Indeed, the committee rarely acted alone. Almost always the citizens were called in, and had as much to say as the members of this self-constituted tribunal upon the case in hand. They only took the initiative; they saw that the scoundrels did not escape; the public did the rest.

As for the thieves, robbers and rascals of every grade, they entertained a wholesome terror of this energetic organization. When one of them received his orders to quit a certain place, he did not dare to disobey. He knew that unless he did what he was commanded, his punishment was inevitable. The committee was as inexorable as destiny itself.

I have no time to go into the examination of the arguments advanced against such an institution as this. A glance at one or two must suffice. It has been said that the committee was irresponsible, and that it is highly dangerous to entrust the power of life and death to irresponsible hands. In truth, however, the committee was not irresponsible. It sprang from the people, and though not formally elected by them, was nevertheless tacitly acknowledged. All its power resulted from the fact that it was a genuine exponent of public opinion, a faithful executor of the public will. The moment it failed fairly to represent the people, that moment its days were numbered. The members of the committee knew perfectly well that the same fate which they decreed to the culprits who fell into their hands, awaited them, should they ever become dangerous to the people.

Again, they have been accused of haste and cruelty in their operations. We have already said something on this head. Perhaps, however, it may be well to speak more directly to this charge. The necessity of punishment must be granted. There is no other mode of preserving order. Now, it must be remembered that California was then really in a state of anarchy, though nominally under the government of the United States. Every body did that which was right in his own eyes, or rather what his inclination prompted him to attempt. The consequence was, as we have already said, that murders and robberies were every-day occurrences. Life and property were wholly unprotected. In this state of affairs the vigilance committee took the matter up, and determined to regulate affairs. What were they to do with a criminal once caught? To take bail for him, and let him run till a certain course of regular formalities could be gone through with? That would have been an extremely judicious proceeding. The escaped scoundrel would have committed further depredations, and, in all probability, the most conspicuous of the committee would have fallen victims to his vengeance. It was necessary, therefore, to try him at once, or else let him go scot-free. The trial over, and conviction obtained, the sentence, whatever it might be, required to be immediately executed, because they had no place of safe-keeping for him. If exile was decreed, he was forthwith drummed out of the settlement; if he was to be hung, the rope was immediately provided. There was no help for it; unless justice were summary, it was null.