f

from the citizens, he was seen on Long Wharf playing at "French Monte," and lustily bawling to the passers-by—“ The ace the ace !-a hundred dollars to him who will tell the ace! -The ace -The ace !-who will name the ace of spades? hundred dollars to any man who will tell the ace !"

A

MARCH 3d.-The steamers Hartford and Santa Clara were burned this morning at Long Wharf.

21

CHAPTER XV.

1851.

Judge Parsons and the case of William Walker for contempt of Court.-Act of Legislaturo ceding Beach and Water Lots to the City of San Francisco.-Act to re-incorporate the city.-New city limits. First election of municipal officers under revised charter.-Act passed to fund the State debt.-Act to establish State Marine Hospital.-Act to fund the floating debt.-Indebtedness of the city.-Municipal officers trafficking in city scrip.-Fifth great fire.

MARCH 9th.-An "indignation" meeting, at which there were several thousand persons present, was held to-day on the plaza, to consider the conduct of Judge Levi Parsons, of the District Court, towards Mr. William Walker, one of the editors of the Daily Herald. It appears that for some time before this date the general public press had been endeavoring to rouse the community to a full knowledge of the increasing and alarming state of crime, and, in doing so, had taken repeated occasion to criticise severely the "masterly inactivity" of the judicature in trying and punishing criminals. This appears to have displeased Judge Parsons, and he thereupon, in an address to the grand jury, chose to style the press a "nuisance," and insinuated that the jury might offer some presentment on the subject. The grand jury, however, did not gratify his wishes. His honor's observations became a new text for the now offended press; and, among other unpleasant things, they began to take grave exceptions to his knowledge and application of the law as regarded grand and petit juries. The Herald, in an article headed "The Press a Nuisance," was especially severe in its strictures. A few members of the bar next began to make some feeble movement to soothe their brother on the bench; but their affected indignation only provoked laughter and made matters worse. Judge Parsons thereupon some days after the obnoxious article had been published, issued an order from his own court to bring before him

Mr. Walker, the acknowledged or reputed author of the article in question. Mr. Walker accordingly appeared, and was duly convicted by his honor,-who was plaintiff, judge and jury in the case,―of contempt of court, fined five hundred dollars, and ordered to be kept in safe custody until the amount was paid. The offender having declined to pay the fine, refusing to recognize his honor's jurisdiction in and summary settlement of the matter, was forthwith imprisoned for an indefinite time.

These circumstances being extensively made known, produced great excitement in the city. One and all of the press were down-to use an expressive vulgarism-upon his honor; and as the people considered that the cause of the press was substantially their own, they resolved to make a "demonstration" on the subject. An "indignation" meeting accordingly was held, as above mentioned, at which resolutions were passed approving of Walker's conduct, and requesting Parsons to resign his judicial situation as no longer fit to hold it. A committee was then formed to transmit these resolutions to the latter. At the same time, the senators and representatives of the district were requested to propose articles of impeachment against the offending judge. The meeting next in a body, some four thousand strong,-paid a personal visit of condolence and sympathy to Mr. Walker in prison.

Meanwhile, the matter was carried by a writ of habeas corpus into the Superior Court, by which Mr. Walker was discharged. It was held that Judge Parsons had abused his position, and that while the ordinary tribunals were open to him, if he considered that Mr. Walker had committed a libel, he had no right to cite and punish summarily that gentleman for any alleged contempt, that might be inferred from the published statements and remarks in a newspaper. The contrary doctrine would be destructive of the freedom of the press, and was opposed to the universally recognized principles of the constitution. This judgment was considered a great popular triumph. In the mean time, the question was farther discussed before the Legislature; and, on the 26th instant, a committee of the Assembly, upon the memorial of Walker, "convinced that Judge Parsons had been guilty of gross tyranny and oppression in the imprisonment of

the memorialist," recommended the impeachment of the former. The majority of a select committee, however, afterwards appointed to inquire into the charges against Parsons, having reported that these, "and the testimony given in support of them, do not show sufficient grounds for impeachment," the matter was dropped.

At the period of which we write, the tribunals of justice were considered altogether insufficient for those dangerous times, and many of the individuals connected with them as both incapable and corrupt. The public looked chiefly to the press for advice and information as to their rights and duties, and had resolved that it should not be gagged and put down "by illegal orders, attachments, fines and imprisonments for imaginary contempts against courts which cannot be reduced much lower than they have reduced themselves." So said the resolutions of the "indignation" meeting of the 9th instant; and this language was generally applauded.

MARCH 26th.-An act passed by the Legislature, ceding, for the period of ninety-nine years, all the right and interest which the State of California had in those parts of the city called the Beach and Water Lots, provided that twenty-five per cent. of all moneys thereafter arising in any way from the sale, or other disposition of the said property, should be paid over by the city to the State. The same act confirmed, also for ninety-nine years, all sales that had previously been made, in virtue of General Kearny's grant to the city, by the ayuntamiento, or town or city council, or by any alcalde of the city, the last having been confirmed by the said ayuntamiento, or town or city council, and the deeds of these sales having been duly registered in the proper books of records. This was a very important act, and tended, in some great degree, to ease the minds of legal possessors of city property. Owing to certain late conflicting decisions of different judges, in regard to real estate, considerable doubt had been cast upon the titles to almost every lot of vacant ground within the municipal bounds, and squatters had been thereby mightily encouraged to invade and secure for themselves the first and best unoccupied land they saw. This led to much confusion and even bloodshed among the contending claimants, and retard

ed for a considerable time the permanent improvement of the city. The "Colton grants," of recent notoriety, likewise increased the general uncertainty in regard to titles. The abovementioned act of the Legislature was therefore considered a great benefit, coming when it did, in regard to at least the "Beach and Water Lots," about the titles to which there could be no dispute.

An act was passed by the Legislature on the 1st of May following, by which the right of the State to these lots was for ever relinquished to the city, provided only that the latter should confirm the grants of all lots within certain specified limits originally made by justices of the peace. As this provision was intended to sanction some of the obnoxious "Colton grants," the common council did not consider it for the interest of the city to accept the State's relinquishment upon such terms, and accordingly the last-mentioned act became inoperative. The boards of aldermen, however, who happened, it might be said, to be somewhat accidentally in office during 1852, attempted to force the provisions of this most obnoxious act upon the citizens, but were successfully opposed by the veto of Mayor Harris and the general cry of public indignation. The act itself was, on the 12th of March, 1852, repealed by the Legislature, just in time to prevent some of the usual jobbery.

APRIL 15th.-Act passed by the Legislature to re-incorporate San Francisco. The limits were enlarged, and the city was thereafter to be bounded as follows:-"On the south, by a line parallel with Clay street, two and a half miles distant, in a southerly direction, from the centre of Portsmouth Square; on the west, by a line parallel with Kearny street, two miles distant, in a westerly direction, from the centre of Portsmouth Square. Its northern and eastern boundaries shall be co-incident with those of the county of San Francisco." As a copy of this act, which is the existing charter of the city, is given in the Appendix, it is unnecessary here to particularize its provisions. Nearly the same. variety and number of municipal officers are appointed to be chosen annually under it as under the charter, already noticed, of 1850, and which latter act was declared to be now repealed.

APRIL 28th.-The first election of municipal officers under