Evening star., 1935-02-03

Georgetown for the Pacific Coast, where it was
were hardy enough to reach the newly ac-
quired territory, ceded to the United States
by Mexico in 1847. They were men then up
in their thirties, educated and capable of being
leaders among the thousands pouring into this
country then almost wilderness
BY 1856 James King was residing in San
Francisco, as were his brothers, Thomas and
william. James was editor of the Evening
Bulletin. and the Sunday Times rival paper,
was edited by James P. Casey. According to
a statement made at the time, a communica-
ton was published in the Sunday Times over
an anonymous signature which reflected upon
the character Of Mr.. King and his brother.
who was then an employe of the custom
house
1t charged that James King had avoided
censuring the collector a Mr. Latham, for his
official conduct because Kings brother an
appontee Of that officer, and because this
brother was an applicant for the position Of
United States marshal to fill the vacancy
occasioned by the death of Gen. Richardson.
and that his failure to obtain 1t was the reason
why Mr.. King had so violently opposed the
appointment of certain Mr.. McDufie.
Several days elapsed before the Bulletin
made reply and then said:
Among the names mentioned by "A Purifier
in his communication Of Friday last objec-
tonable appointments of the custom house
was that of Mr. Bagley who has since called
on u.s. and by whose request we have made
more particular inquiries into the charges
made against him
"The fact that Casey has been an inmate
Of Sing Sing Prison in New York is no offense
against the laws of this State, nor is the fact
of his having stuffed himself through the
ballot box, elected to the Board Of Super
visors from district where 1t is said he was
not even a candidate, any Justification for Mr..
~f1 rl..1A ..aI@I,
latter may deserve to have his neck stretch
for such fraud on the people. These are acts
against the public good not against Mr.. Bag
ley in particular and however much we may
detest Caseys former character or be con-
vnced of the shallowness of his promised refor-
nation, we cannot justify the assumption by
Mr.. Bagley to take upon himself the redressing
of these wrongs. This case of Bagley's has
caused us much anxiety, and we should have
been pleased to have withdrawn cheerfully his
name from the list alluded TO- but we cannot
conscientiousy do more than express grati-
fcation at the assurances we get of his present
conduct, in which we trust he will perSevere.
AS to the Casey fight, we suggest to Mr.. Bag
ley, If he can explain that away, it would not
be amiss to do SO, and he can have the use OF
our columns for that purpose"
THAT evening MAY IA. 1866 Casey and King
met near the corner of Washington and
montgomery streets, and Casey drew revolver
and shot Mr.. King through the left breast.
The latter died a few days later.
In those days San Francisco had its vigil
ance committee and, though some form of re-
sistance was offered by the authorities in
power, yet this availed little against the 5000
stands of muskets and field pieces which
the committee was able to muster. Casey and
another prisoner named Cora were publicly
executed in the presence of more than 600
people, nearly all of whom thought a good
work had been done. Thomas Sim Kings
comments made at the time of the shooting,
may give an idea of the type of man Casey
was. He said:
IT have but little to say about this matter.
My opinion of it is that it is a cool, premedi-