made _alcaldes_ soon came to pay little attention to
technicalities and to seek the merit of cases without regard to rules or
forms. All the administration of the law was in the hands of these
_alcaldes_. Mason, who once made the experiment of appointing a special
court at Sutter's Fort to try a man known as Growling Smith for the
murder of Indians, afterwards declared that he would not do it again
except in the most extraordinary emergency, as the precedent was bad.

As may well be imagined, this uniquely individualistic view of the law
made interesting legal history. Many of the incumbents were of the rough
diamond type. Stories innumerable are related of them. They had little
regard for the external dignity of the court, but they strongly insisted
on its discipline. Many of them sat with their feet on the desk, chewing
tobacco, and whittling a stick. During a trial one of the counsel
referred to his opponent as an "oscillating Tarquin." The judge roared
out "A what?"

"An oscillating Tarquin, your honor."

The judge's chair came down with a thump.

"If this honorable court knows herself, and she thinks she do, that
remark is an insult to this honorable court, and you are fined two
ounces."

Expostulation was cut short.

"Silence, sir! This honorable court won't tolerate cussings and she
never goes back on her decisions!"

And she didn't!

Nevertheless a sort of rough justice was generally accomplished. These
men felt a responsibility. In addition they possessed a grim commonsense
earned by actual experience.

There is an instance of a priest from Santa Clara, sued before the
_alcalde_ of San Jose for a breach of contract. His plea was that as a
churchman he was not amenable to civil law. The American decided that,
while he could not tell what peculiar privileges a clergyman enjoyed as
a priest, it was quite evident that when he departed from his religious
calling and entered into a secular bargain with a citizen he placed
himself on the same footing as the citizen, and should be required like
anybody else to comply with his agreement. This principle, which was
good sense, has since become good law.

The _alcalde_ refused to be bound by trivial concerns. A Mexican was
accused of stealing a pair of leggings. He was convicted and fined
three ounces for stealing, while the prosecuting witness was also fined
one ounce for bothering the court with such a complaint. On another
occasion the defendant, on being