Personal reminiscences of early days in California, with other sketches

In Short

This volume serves as both a memoir and a defense of the rule of law in a society prone to violence. It chronicles the author’s evolution from an early California magistrate—who once drafted the laws of a mining camp by the seat of his pants—to a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Through these sketches, he details the professional hazards of his career, including being targeted by "infernal machines" and surviving a lethal encounter with a bitter legal adversary. The work endures as a vivid, firsthand account of how the American legal system struggled to establish order amidst the chaos of the nineteenth-century West.

The Story

The narrative begins in the late 1840s, when the author arrives in a nascent, bustling California. He quickly finds himself thrust into positions of local authority, serving as a first Alcalde in Marysville. In this role, he performs a variety of functions, from mediator to legislator, drafting charters and codes that would stabilize the region’s volatile social fabric. He describes this period with a mix of pride and pragmatism, detailing how he brought order to a community that often favored the pistol over the gavel. His efforts to establish clear property rights and civil processes, however, draw the ire of corrupt judges and violent litigants, setting the stage for decades of professional friction.

As he ascends to the California Supreme Court, the story shifts from frontier improvisation to the complexities of constitutional authority. He recounts the "annoyances" of his judicial life, which were far more dangerous than simple administrative headaches. He faces political harassment, including a congressional resolution intended to intimidate him during the Reconstruction era, and survives a series of personal threats. The narrative arc reaches its dramatic climax in the infamous litigation involving Sarah Althea Hill and her husband, David S. Terry. After a long, bitter battle over fraudulent marriage claims, the conflict escalates into open intimidation.

The final segments detail the haunting reality of his later years, where he lives under the shadow of a man who explicitly vowed to kill him. This culmination involves a tense, high-stakes confrontation in a California train station, where the author’s life is saved by a federal marshal who kills Terry in defense of the judge. The book concludes with the legal aftermath of this event, as the author faces his own arrest on baseless charges of conspiracy, ultimately vindicated by the federal courts. His reflection on this ordeal is stoic; he emphasizes his refusal to carry weapons, asserting that if a judge must arm himself to survive, the very experiment of civil government has failed.

How It Unfolds

The frontier magistrate The author recounts his early days in Marysville, where he acted as a one-man legal system, issuing process to seize riverboats and calling juries to settle disputes. He demonstrates how these prompt, common-sense rulings earned him the support of a community desperate for stability.

Legislative foundations He details his transition to the state legislature, where he drafted the foundational laws for California’s counties and courts. This section serves as a technical record of his efforts to replace arbitrary rule with standardized, professional statutes.

Judicial peril The narrative turns to the systemic threats faced by the judiciary, including the "torpedo" delivered by mail and the constant political maneuvering of his enemies. He shifts from an active lawmaker to a target, highlighting the personal cost of maintaining judicial independence.

The final confrontation The story closes with the violent climax of the Sharon-Terry case, leading to the shooting of David S. Terry by a federal marshal. The book concludes with the author's own legal battle to prove that he acted only as a servant of the law, not a conspirator.

The People

The author, Stephen J. Field, acts as the stoic protagonist who seeks to impose legal structure upon a chaotic society. His primary adversary is David S. Terry, a man whose volatile temperament leads him from a high judicial position to a career of violent, personal vendettas. Terry stands as the antithesis of the author’s vision of law, representing the dangerous intersection of political power and physical aggression. Sarah Althea Hill, whose fraudulent marriage claims spark the long-running litigation, functions as the catalyst for this final, destructive conflict. Alongside these figures are figures like Marshal Neagle, who embodies the protective, albeit dangerous, arm of the law, and various colleagues who assist the author in navigating the treacherous legal waters of the Reconstruction era.

In Its Own Voice

"When the civil tribunals are open and in the undisturbed exercise of their jurisdiction, a resort to violence can never be approved or excused."

The author reflects on his decision to speak out against a lynch mob in Marysville, cementing his commitment to due process.

"No, sir! I will not carry arms, for when it is known that the judges of our courts are compelled to arm themselves against assaults in consequence of their judicial action it will be time to dissolve the courts, consider government a failure, and let society lapse into barbarism."

The author responds to friends who urged him to protect himself with a weapon against the threats made by David S. Terry.

What It's Really About

The central argument concerns the fragility of the rule of law in a society where "might makes right." The author posits that the stability of a nation rests not on the strength of individual men, but on the integrity of the judicial process. He grapples with the question of whether a democratic society can truly govern itself if its officers are subject to intimidation and if its citizens refuse to accept the finality of court judgments. By detailing the absurdity of fraudulent claims and the violence of his opponents, he suggests that the law is not a static set of rules, but a living, vulnerable shield that must be defended against those who would prioritize personal grievance over the public good.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of the American West, the evolution of constitutional law, or the mechanics of 19th-century political life will find this account essential. It is not a polished, modern biography but a raw, dictated narrative; it retains the formal, sometimes stiff prose of a nineteenth-century jurist, which may challenge readers accustomed to contemporary memoirs. However, the vividness of its anecdotes—particularly the description of the "infernal machine" and the cold, bureaucratic detail of court orders—makes the period feel immediate and tangible.

The book is an honest look at the biases and attitudes of its time, including its period-specific views on gender and "inferior" political elements, which the reader will encounter without modern filtering. What stays with you is the haunting sense of a man standing alone against a wave of lawlessness, insisting on the sanctity of his office even when it nearly costs him his life. It is an instructive study on the thin line between civilization and barbarism, reminding us that the institutions we take for granted were often built by individuals who risked their own survival to ensure those institutions would endure.