much whether they are strictly observed in any state. We want no laws upon our statute-book which can not be enforced. Whilst, therefore, I am not prepared to recommend such laws, I am satisfied that the public good demands that a law should be passed allowing only the legal rate of interest (ten per cent) on judgments."1

The next notable event in Weller's administration was one that occasioned much talk and, though the governor had much to say against others, did not show him to be entirely without carelessness, if not fault, himself. It appears that an Indian named José Anastacio had been convicted of murder in Monterey county and sentenced to be hanged on February 12, 1858. The law required the judge of the court, in case of a capital conviction, to immediately transmit to the governor, by mail or otherwise, a statement of the conviction and judgment and of the testimony given on the trial. It seems that this statement did not reach the hands of Weller; but a relative of the doomed man went up to Sacramento to plead for him, and on February 8 the governor issued a paper, respiting the execution of "Anastasia Jesus" to March 5. The respite was on the same February 8 sent to the sheriff of Monterey county, and on the same day a letter was written to Craven P. Hester, judge of the third district court, before whom the conviction had been had, giving him notice of the respite and asking why he had not forwarded a transcript of the testimony. On February 12, notwithstanding the respite, José Anastacio was hanged; and, when the account of the execution was received at Sacramento, the governor, as may be imagined, was wild with anger. But the true state of the case soon became public and it was seen that the governor had made a mistake in using one name for another and very different one. On February 15 Judge Hester replied in an official manner to the notice that had been sent him to the effect that no such person as Anastasia Jesus had been convicted in his court; that the only person tried was one José Anastacio; that he had been convicted of murder, and that, in accordance with the law, he as judge had made out a statement of the conviction and judgment and of the testimony given at the trial and within three days after December 31, 1857, 'Senate Journal, 1858, 138, 189-191.

the day of sentence, committed them to the mail, directed to Governor Weller at Sacramento. In that connection, however, he called attention to the fact that the statute did not require him to copy the evidence but only to make a statement of it, which meant its substance; and he had done so at the time and now sent a second one.

On February 17 Weller replied to Hester that if his statement had been forwarded to Sacramento within three days after December 31, 1857, it must have fallen into the hands of his predecessor as he himself had not taken office until January 9; but his predecessor had said that he never received such papers. It was the first time within his knowledge, he went on to say, when communications or letters, addressed to him through the post-office in California, had failed to reach him. And he added. that if the statement just sent by the judge, and which appears to have convinced him of José Anastacio's guilt, had been in his possession before, "Monterey would not have been disgraced again by a mob execution." But it was especially upon Thomas B. Pool, the under-sheriff, that he poured out the vials of his wrath and vituperation. Pool, who conducted the execution, had on February 15 written that he had received the respite for Anastasia Jesus and was satisfied it was meant for José Anastacio; but that he had no right to understand the instrument otherwise than as it read; that he had therefore carried out the judgment and sentence of the court, and that, if he had not done so, the public excitement was so great that the prisoner would probably have been executed by the citizens of the place. Weller replied to Pool on February 19 and, among other condemnatory remarks, said, “You also say that, ‘if you had not hung him, in all probability the citizens would' and you express the hope that I will 'place the proper construction on your conduct in the matter.' I assure you, sir, that I do place 'the proper construction' on your conduct and have no hesitation in saying you are guilty of judicial murder. You had no more authority, under the laws of this state, to execute that man than you have to shoot your neighbor without provocation. Those who advised you to avail yourself of the quibble in regard to the name, deserve the contempt of all honest men." And he closed his reply with saying

that Pool's "name ought to be consigned to eternal infamy," and that his only regret was that he had not the power to punish such conduct as it deserved.'

Weller did not hesitate to speak out what he thought, and apparently without caring much or perhaps thinking much how it might sound. On March 8, having made up his mind that Thomas H. Williams, the attorney-general, did not receive pay enough, he recommended to the legislature that, as the constitution did not allow the salary of the attorney-general to be increased during his term of office, the difficulty should be overcome by allowing Williams fifteen hundred dollars additional pay for contingent expenses. This may not have been an entirely original method of getting around, or rather of violating, the constitution; but, if not, it was a bad copy and a worse example, too often afterwards followed. On the other hand, in approving the Van Ness ordinance of San Francisco, which settled the titles to all the lots within the limits of that city, served as a model for the settlement of the titles of all the land titles in that county and proved to be one of the most beneficent acts ever passed in the state, he apologized for his action and acknowledged that he had only done so in deference to the demands of the united San Francisco delegation. "Whether this bill," he said, "will settle the disputes and give quiet and security to the community, I confess I am not able to determine. It certainly will not close the door to litigation and may complicate the difficulty to a greater extent. I do not see how the legislature can decide these adverse claims in that city and hence it may be found that this act has no legal effect." But, as the San Francisco delegation were in favor of it and some had given a public pledge to sustain it, he would not prevent them from carrying out the express will of the people. And thus with a sort of metaphorical kick, exactly expressive of what he really thought of the bill as a piece of legislation, he shoved it through and washed his hands of it."

The statute approving the Van Ness ordinance just mentioned deserves a more extended notice than it has as yet

received. The original proposition was a plan gotten up for the settlement of titles to lands within the limits of the San Francisco city charter of 1851 and particularly that portion of them between the charter lines of 1850 and 1851, known as the Western Addition. Though mainly based upon the supposition that those lands were not pueblo lands, or in other words lands belonging to the city by virtue of the old Spanish or Mexican laws, but were public lands of the United States, it was calculated for their disposition in any event. It consisted of two ordinances, introduced into and passed by the city council of San Francisco -the first and most important on June 20, 1855, while Stephen P. Webb was mayor, and the second on September 27, 1855, while James Van Ness was mayor. Its main provisions were that the lands within the city limits should be entered by the mayor at the proper United States land office in trust for the occupants thereof; that the city should have such portions as were necessary for plazas, squares, streets and other public purposes, and that the remainder should belong to such persons as had been in the actual, bona-fide possession thereof from the first of January, 1855, to the twentieth of June of the same year or could show by legal adjudication that they were entitled to such possession. It further provided for the laying out of streets and for liberal selections of grounds for public purposes and likewise that application should be made to the legislature for its confirmation and ratification and to congress for the relinquishment to the city of all the right, title and interest of the United States. In accordance with these provisions, commissioners were appointed and the lands mentioned laid out into blocks; the necessary squares, streets, school-house and fire engine lots and other public places were reserved; a map was made; and the title to the remainder, so far as could be done by ordinance, was relinquished to the actual possessors as described. But it was plainly necessary, to make this action and particularly this relinquishment of title valid, that the state government would have to sanction it if the lands were pueblo lands or belonged to the city or the state, and the United States. government if they belonged to the United States. As the state courts, when the matter came up for direct determination, decided

that there had been some sort of a pueblo at San Francisco and that the city lands were pueblo lands and as the United States courts followed them in such decision, it can easily be seen how very important, notwithstanding the remarks of the governor, was the confirmation and ratification by the state of the city ordinances. A few years subsequently, in further compliance with the provisions of the same ordinance, congress supplemented the action of the legislature with a special relinquishment of any title to the same land that might be held by the United States; and thus by wise legislation the whole vexed question of the source of title to city lands was settled and quieted. And it may be added, as above intimated and as will appear more at length further along, that a few years after the settlement of these so-called Van Ness ordinance lands, and in a somewhat similar but improved manner, all the lands within the limits of the four square leagues of the supposed old pueblo, outside of the charter lines of 1851 and therefore called "Outside Lands," were settled and disposed of.1

As an offset or counterpoise to the very excellent legislation in confirming and ratifying the Van Ness ordinance, the legislature of 1858 passed a Sunday law. Notwithstanding a certain portion of the community has always been in favor of a Sunday law and other similar enactments for the enforcement of religious observances as well as of what they conceive to be the dictates of correct Sunday living, there can be but little doubt that restrictive acts of this kind do not, and never did, suit the spirit of the people of California. In no other part of the United States has there ever been so much liberty of conscience, so much freedom from dictation and so much disregard of what other people may think in this respect as in California. But repeated clamors for such a law, commencing in the early days, at length in 1858 brought about the passage of an act for the closing up of every store, shop and house of every description for business purposes, excepting taverns, eating-houses and certain others, and for the prohibition of the sale or exposure for sale of any goods or merchandise excepting certain specified kinds. This act, after causing much trouble, without accom1 Stats. 1858, 52,