It is but just to the respectable memory of San Francisco that in these vagrant recollections I should deprecate at once any suggestion that the levity of my title described its dominant tone at any period of my early experiences.  On the contrary, it was a singular fact that while the rest of California was swayed by an easy, careless unconventionalism, or swept over by waves of emotion and sentiment, San Francisco preserved an intensely material and practical attitude, and even a certain austere morality.  I do not, of course, allude to the brief days of ’49, when it was a straggling beach of huts and stranded hulks, but to the earlier stages of its development into the metropolis of California.  Its first tottering steps in that direction were marked by a distinct gravity and decorum.  Even during the period when the revolver settled small private difficulties, and Vigilance Committees adjudicated larger public ones, an unmistakable seriousness and respectability was the ruling sign of its governing class.  It was not improbable that under the reign of the Committee the lawless and vicious class were more appalled by the moral spectacle of several thousand black-coated, serious-minded business men in embattled procession than by mere force of arms, and one “suspect” ­a prize-fighter ­is known to have committed suicide in his cell after confrontation with his grave and passionless shopkeeping judges.  Even that peculiar quality of Californian humor which was apt to mitigate the extravagances of the revolver and the uncertainties of poker had no place in the decorous and responsible utterance of San Francisco.  The press was sober, materialistic, practical ­when it was not severely admonitory of existing evil; the few smaller papers that indulged in levity were considered libelous and improper.  Fancy was displaced by heavy articles on the revenues of the State and inducements to the investment of capital.  Local news was under an implied censorship which suppressed anything that might tend to discourage timid or cautious capital.  Episodes of romantic lawlessness or pathetic incidents of mining life were carefully edited ­with the comment that these things belonged to the past, and that life and property were now “as safe in San Francisco as in New York or London.”

Wonder-loving visitors in quest of scenes characteristic of the civilization were coldly snubbed with this assurance.  Fires, floods, and even seismic convulsions were subjected to a like grimly materialistic optimism.  I have a vivid recollection of a ponderous editorial on one of the severer earthquakes, in which it was asserted that only the unexpectedness of the onset prevented San Francisco from meeting it in a way that would be deterrent of all future attacks.  The unconsciousness of the humor was only equaled by the gravity with which it was received by the whole business community.  Strangely enough, this grave materialism flourished side by side with ­and was even sustained by ­a narrow religious strictness more characteristic of the Pilgrim Fathers of a past century than the Western pioneers of the present.  San Francisco was early a city of churches and church organizations to which the leading men and merchants belonged.  The lax Sundays of the dying Spanish race seemed only to provoke a revival of the rigors of the Puritan Sabbath.  With the Spaniard and his Sunday afternoon bullfight scarcely an hour distant, the San Francisco pulpit thundered against Sunday picnics.  One of the popular preachers, declaiming upon the practice of Sunday dinner-giving, averred that when he saw a guest in his best Sunday clothes standing shamelessly upon the doorstep of his host, he felt like seizing him by the shoulder and dragging him from that threshold of perdition.

Against the actual heathen the feeling was even stronger, and reached its climax one Sunday when a Chinaman was stoned to death by a crowd of children returning from Sunday-school.  I am offering these examples with no ethical purpose, but merely to indicate a singular contradictory condition which I do not think writers of early Californian history have fairly recorded.  It is not my province to suggest any theory for these appalling exceptions to the usual good-humored lawlessness and extravagance of the rest of the State.  They may have been essential agencies to the growth and evolution of the city.  They were undoubtedly sincere.  The impressions I propose to give of certain scenes and incidents of my early experience must, therefore, be taken as purely personal and Bohemian, and their selection as equally individual and vagrant.  I am writing of what interested me at the time, though not perhaps of what was more generally characteristic of San Francisco.

I had been there a week ­an idle week, spent in listless outlook for employment; a full week in my eager absorption of the strange life around me and a photographic sensitiveness to certain scenes and incidents of those days, which start out of my memory to-day as freshly as the day they impressed me.

One of these recollections is of “steamer night,” as it was called, ­the night of “steamer day,” ­preceding the departure of the mail steamship with the mails for “home.”  Indeed, at that time San Francisco may be said to have lived from steamer day to steamer day; bills were made due on that day, interest computed to that period, and accounts settled.  The next day was the turning of a new leaf:  another essay to fortune, another inspiration of energy.  So recognized was the fact that even ordinary changes of condition, social and domestic, were put aside until after steamer day.  “I’ll see what I can do after next steamer day” was the common cautious or hopeful formula.  It was the “Saturday night” of many a wage-earner ­and to him a night of festivity.  The thoroughfares were animated and crowded; the saloons and theatres full.  I can recall myself at such times wandering along the City Front, as the business part of San Francisco was then known.  Here the lights were burning all night, the first streaks of dawn finding the merchants still at their counting-house desks.  I remember the dim lines of warehouses lining the insecure wharves of rotten piles, half filled in ­that had ceased to be wharves, but had not yet become streets, ­their treacherous yawning depths, with the uncertain gleam of tarlike mud below, at times still vocal with the lap and gurgle of the tide.  I remember the weird stories of disappearing men found afterward imbedded in the ooze in which they had fallen and gasped their life away.  I remember the two or three ships, still left standing where they were beached a year or two before, built in between warehouses, their bows projecting into the roadway.  There was the dignity of the sea and its boundless freedom in their beautiful curves, which the abutting houses could not destroy, and even something of the sea’s loneliness in the far-spaced ports and cabin windows lit up by the lamps of the prosaic landsmen who plied their trades behind them.  One of these ships, transformed into a hotel, retained its name, the Niantic, and part of its characteristic interior unchanged.  I remember these ships’ old tenants ­the rats ­who had increased and multiplied to such an extent that at night they fearlessly crossed the wayfarer’s path at every turn, and even invaded the gilded saloons of Montgomery Street.  In the Niantic their pit-a-pat was met on every staircase, and it was said that sometimes in an excess of sociability they accompanied the traveler to his room.  In the early “cloth-and-papered” houses ­so called because the ceilings were not plastered, but simply covered by stretched and whitewashed cloth ­their scamperings were plainly indicated in zigzag movements of the sagging cloth, or they became actually visible by finally dropping through the holes they had worn in it!  I remember the house whose foundations were made of boxes of plug tobacco ­part of a jettisoned cargo ­used instead of more expensive lumber; and the adjacent warehouse where the trunks of the early and forgotten “forty-niners” were stored, and ­never claimed by their dead or missing owners ­were finally sold at auction.  I remember the strong breath of the sea over all, and the constant onset of the trade winds which helped to disinfect the deposit of dirt and grime, decay and wreckage, which were stirred up in the later evolutions of the city.

Or I recall, with the same sense of youthful satisfaction and unabated wonder, my wanderings through the Spanish Quarter, where three centuries of quaint customs, speech, and dress were still preserved; where the proverbs of Sancho Panza were still spoken in the language of Cervantes, and the high-flown illusions of the La Manchian knight still a part of the Spanish Californian hidalgo’s dream.  I recall the more modern “Greaser,” or Mexican ­his index finger steeped in cigarette stains; his velvet jacket and his crimson sash; the many-flounced skirt and lace manta of his women, and their caressing intonations ­the one musical utterance of the whole hard-voiced city.  I suppose I had a boy’s digestion and bluntness of taste in those days, for the combined odor of tobacco, burned paper, and garlic, which marked that melodious breath, did not affect me.

Perhaps from my Puritan training I experienced a more fearful joy in the gambling saloons.  They were the largest and most comfortable, even as they were the most expensively decorated rooms in San Francisco.  Here again the gravity and decorum which I have already alluded to were present at that earlier period ­though perhaps from concentration of another kind.  People staked and lost their last dollar with a calm solemnity and a resignation that was almost Christian.  The oaths, exclamations, and feverish interruptions which often characterized more dignified assemblies were absent here.  There was no room for the lesser vices; there was little or no drunkenness; the gaudily dressed and painted women who presided over the wheels of fortune or performed on the harp and piano attracted no attention from those ascetic players.  The man who had won ten thousand dollars and the man who had lost everything rose from the table with equal silence and imperturbability.  I never witnessed any tragic sequel to those losses; I never heard of any suicide on account of them.  Neither can I recall any quarrel or murder directly attributable to this kind of gambling.  It must be remembered that these public games were chiefly rouge et noir, monte, faro, or roulette, in which the antagonist was Fate, Chance, Method, or the impersonal “bank,” which was supposed to represent them all; there was no individual opposition or rivalry; nobody challenged the decision of the “croupier,” or dealer.

I remember a conversation at the door of one saloon which was as characteristic for its brevity as it was a type of the prevailing stoicism.  “Hello!” said a departing miner, as he recognized a brother miner coming in, “when did you come down?” “This morning,” was the reply.  “Made a strike on the bar?” suggested the first speaker.  “You bet!” said the other, and passed in.  I chanced an hour later to be at the same place as they met again ­their relative positions changed.  “Hello!  Whar now?” said the incomer.  “Back to the bar.”  “Cleaned out?” “You bet!” Not a word more explained a common situation.

My first youthful experience at those tables was an accidental one.  I was watching roulette one evening, intensely absorbed in the mere movement of the players.  Either they were so preoccupied with the game, or I was really older looking than my actual years, but a bystander laid his hand familiarly on my shoulder, and said, as to an ordinary habitue, “Ef you’re not chippin’ in yourself, pardner, s’pose you give me a show.”  Now I honestly believe that up to that moment I had no intention, nor even a desire, to try my own fortune.  But in the embarrassment of the sudden address I put my hand in my pocket, drew out a coin, and laid it, with an attempt at carelessness, but a vivid consciousness that I was blushing, upon a vacant number.  To my horror I saw that I had put down a large coin ­the bulk of my possessions!  I did not flinch, however; I think any boy who reads this will understand my feeling; it was not only my coin but my manhood at stake.  I gazed with a miserable show of indifference at the players, at the chandelier ­anywhere but at the dreadful ball spinning round the wheel.  There was a pause; the game was declared, the rake rattled up and down, but still I did not look at the table.  Indeed, in my inexperience of the game and my embarrassment, I doubt if I should have known if I had won or not.  I had made up my mind that I should lose, but I must do so like a man, and, above all, without giving the least suspicion that I was a greenhorn.  I even affected to be listening to the music.  The wheel spun again; the game was declared, the rake was busy, but I did not move.  At last the man I had displaced touched me on the arm and whispered, “Better make a straddle and divide your stake this time.”  I did not understand him, but as I saw he was looking at the board, I was obliged to look, too.  I drew back dazed and bewildered!  Where my coin had lain a moment before was a glittering heap of gold.

My stake had doubled, quadrupled, and doubled again.  I did not know how much then –­I do not know now ­it may have been not more than three or four hundred dollars ­but it dazzled and frightened me.  “Make your game, gentlemen,” said the croupier monotonously.  I thought he looked at me ­indeed, everybody seemed to be looking at me ­and my companion repeated his warning.  But here I must again appeal to the boyish reader in defense of my idiotic obstinacy.  To have taken advice would have shown my youth.  I shook my head ­I could not trust my voice.  I smiled, but with a sinking heart, and let my stake remain.  The ball again sped round the wheel, and stopped.  There was a pause.  The croupier indolently advanced his rake and swept my whole pile with others into the bank!  I had lost it all.  Perhaps it may be difficult for me to explain why I actually felt relieved, and even to some extent triumphant, but I seemed to have asserted my grown-up independence ­possibly at the cost of reducing the number of my meals for days; but what of that!  I was a man!  I wish I could say that it was a lesson to me.  I am afraid it was not.  It was true that I did not gamble again, but then I had no especial desire to ­and there was no temptation.  I am afraid it was an incident without a moral.  Yet it had one touch characteristic of the period which I like to remember.  The man who had spoken to me, I think, suddenly realized, at the moment of my disastrous coup, the fact of my extreme youth.  He moved toward the banker, and leaning over him whispered a few words.  The banker looked up, half impatiently, half kindly ­his hand straying tentatively toward the pile of coin.  I instinctively knew what he meant, and, summoning my determination, met his eyes with all the indifference I could assume, and walked away.

I had at that period a small room at the top of a house owned by a distant relation ­a second or third cousin, I think.  He was a man of independent and original character, had a Ulyssean experience of men and cities, and an old English name of which he was proud.  While in London he had procured from the Heralds’ College his family arms, whose crest was stamped upon a quantity of plate he had brought with him to California.  The plate, together with an exceptionally good cook, which he had also brought, and his own epicurean tastes, he utilized in the usual practical Californian fashion by starting a rather expensive half-club, half-restaurant in the lower part of the building ­which he ruled somewhat autocratically, as became his crest.  The restaurant was too expensive for me to patronize, but I saw many of its frequenters as well as those who had rooms at the club.  They were men of very distinct personality; a few celebrated, and nearly all notorious.  They represented a Bohemianism ­if such it could be called ­less innocent than my later experiences.  I remember, however, one handsome young fellow whom I used to meet occasionally on the staircase, who captured my youthful fancy.  I met him only at midday, as he did not rise till late, and this fact, with a certain scrupulous elegance and neatness in his dress, ought to have made me suspect that he was a gambler.  In my inexperience it only invested him with a certain romantic mystery.

One morning as I was going out to my very early breakfast at a cheap Italian cafe on Long Wharf, I was surprised to find him also descending the staircase.  He was scrupulously dressed even at that early hour, but I was struck by the fact that he was all in black, and his slight figure, buttoned to the throat in a tightly fitting frock coat, gave, I fancied, a singular melancholy to his pale Southern face.  Nevertheless, he greeted me with more than his usual serene cordiality, and I remembered that he looked up with a half-puzzled, half-amused expression at the rosy morning sky as he walked a few steps with me down the deserted street.  I could not help saying that I was astonished to see him up so early, and he admitted that it was a break in his usual habits, but added with a smiling significance I afterwards remembered that it was “an even chance if he did it again.”  As we neared the street corner a man in a buggy drove up impatiently.  In spite of the driver’s evident haste, my handsome acquaintance got in leisurely, and, lifting his glossy hat to me with a pleasant smile, was driven away.  I have a very lasting recollection of his face and figure as the buggy disappeared down the empty street.  I never saw him again.  It was not until a week later that I knew that an hour after he left me that morning he was lying dead in a little hollow behind the Mission Dolores ­shot through the heart in a duel for which he had risen so early.

I recall another incident of that period, equally characteristic, but happily less tragic in sequel.  I was in the restaurant one morning talking to my cousin when a man entered hastily and said something to him in a hurried whisper.  My cousin contracted his eyebrows and uttered a suppressed oath.  Then with a gesture of warning to the man he crossed the room quietly to a table where a regular habitue of the restaurant was lazily finishing his breakfast.  A large silver coffee-pot with a stiff wooden handle stood on the table before him.  My cousin leaned over the guest familiarly and apparently made some hospitable inquiry as to his wants, with his hand resting lightly on the coffee-pot handle.  Then ­possibly because, my curiosity having been excited, I was watching him more intently than the others ­I saw what probably no one else saw ­that he deliberately upset the coffee-pot and its contents over the guest’s shirt and waistcoat.  As the victim sprang up with an exclamation, my cousin overwhelmed him with apologies for his carelessness, and, with protestations of sorrow for the accident, actually insisted upon dragging the man upstairs into his own private room, where he furnished him with a shirt and waistcoat of his own.  The side door had scarcely closed upon them, and I was still lost in wonder at what I had seen, when a man entered from the street.  He was one of the desperate set I have already spoken of, and thoroughly well known to those present.  He cast a glance around the room, nodded to one or two of the guests, and then walked to a side table and took up a newspaper.  I was conscious at once that a singular constraint had come over the other guests ­a nervous awkwardness that at last seemed to make itself known to the man himself, who, after an affected yawn or two, laid down the paper and walked out.

“That was a mighty close call,” said one of the guests with a sigh of relief.

“You bet!  And that coffee-pot spill was the luckiest kind of accident for Peters,” returned another.

“For both,” added the first speaker, “for Peters was armed too, and would have seen him come in!”

A word or two explained all.  Peters and the last comer had quarreled a day or two before, and had separated with the intention to “shoot on sight,” that is, wherever they met, ­a form of duel common to those days.  The accidental meeting in the restaurant would have been the occasion, with the usual sanguinary consequence, but for the word of warning given to my cousin by a passer-by who knew that Peters’ antagonist was coming to the restaurant to look at the papers.  Had my cousin repeated the warning to Peters himself he would only have prepared him for the conflict ­which he would not have shirked ­and so precipitated the affray.

The ruse of upsetting the coffee-pot, which everybody but myself thought an accident, was to get him out of the room before the other entered.  I was too young then to venture to intrude upon my cousin’s secrets, but two or three years afterwards I taxed him with the trick and he admitted it regretfully.  I believe that a strict interpretation of the “code” would have condemned his act as unsportsmanlike, if not unfair!

I recall another incident connected with the building equally characteristic of the period.  The United States Branch Mint stood very near it, and its tall, factory-like chimneys overshadowed my cousin’s roof.  Some scandal had arisen from an alleged leakage of gold in the manipulation of that metal during the various processes of smelting and refining.  One of the excuses offered was the volatilization of the precious metal and its escape through the draft of the tall chimneys.  All San Francisco laughed at this explanation until it learned that a corroboration of the theory had been established by an assay of the dust and grime of the roofs in the vicinity of the Mint.  These had yielded distinct traces of gold.  San Francisco stopped laughing, and that portion of it which had roofs in the neighborhood at once began prospecting.  Claims were staked out on these airy placers, and my cousin’s roof, being the very next one to the chimney, and presumably “in the lead,” was disposed of to a speculative company for a considerable sum.  I remember my cousin telling me the story ­for the occurrence was quite recent ­and taking me with him to the roof to explain it, but I am afraid I was more attracted by the mystery of the closely guarded building, and the strangely tinted smoke which arose from this temple where money was actually being “made,” than by anything else.  Nor did I dream as I stood there ­a very lanky, open-mouthed youth ­that only three or four years later I should be the secretary of its superintendent.  In my more adventurous ambition I am afraid I would have accepted the suggestion half-heartedly.  Merely to have helped to stamp the gold which other people had adventurously found was by no means a part of my youthful dreams.

At the time of these earlier impressions the Chinese had not yet become the recognized factors in the domestic and business economy of the city which they had come to be when I returned from the mines three years later.  Yet they were even then a more remarkable and picturesque contrast to the bustling, breathless, and brand-new life of San Francisco than the Spaniard.  The latter seldom flaunted his faded dignity in the principal thoroughfares.  “John” was to be met everywhere.  It was a common thing to see a long file of sampan coolies carrying their baskets slung between them, on poles, jostling a modern, well-dressed crowd in Montgomery Street, or to get a whiff of their burned punk in the side streets; while the road leading to their temporary burial-ground at Lone Mountain was littered with slips of colored paper scattered from their funerals.  They brought an atmosphere of the Arabian Nights into the hard, modern civilization; their shops ­not always confined at that time to a Chinese quarter ­were replicas of the bazaars of Canton and Peking, with their quaint display of little dishes on which tidbits of food delicacies were exposed for sale, all of the dimensions and unreality of a doll’s kitchen or a child’s housekeeping.

They were a revelation to the Eastern immigrant, whose preconceived ideas of them were borrowed from the ballet or pantomime; they did not wear scalloped drawers and hats with jingling bells on their points, nor did I ever see them dance with their forefingers vertically extended.  They were always neatly dressed, even the commonest of coolies, and their festive dresses were marvels.  As traders they were grave and patient; as servants they were sad and civil, and all were singularly infantine in their natural simplicity.  The living representatives of the oldest civilization in the world, they seemed like children.  Yet they kept their beliefs and sympathies to themselves, never fraternizing with the fanqui, or foreign devil, or losing their singular racial qualities.  They indulged in their own peculiar habits; of their social and inner life, San Francisco knew but little and cared less.  Even at this early period, and before I came to know them more intimately, I remember an incident of their daring fidelity to their own customs that was accidentally revealed to me.  I had become acquainted with a Chinese youth of about my own age, as I imagined, ­although from mere outward appearance it was generally impossible to judge of a Chinaman’s age between the limits of seventeen and forty years, ­and he had, in a burst of confidence, taken me to see some characteristic sights in a Chinese warehouse within a stone’s throw of the Plaza.  I was struck by the singular circumstance that while the warehouse was an erection of wood in the ordinary hasty Californian style, there were certain brick and stone divisions in its interior, like small rooms or closets, evidently added by the Chinamen tenants.  My companion stopped before a long, very narrow entrance, a mere longitudinal slit in the brick wall, and with a wink of infantine deviltry motioned me to look inside.  I did so, and saw a room, really a cell, of fair height but scarcely six feet square, and barely able to contain a rude, slanting couch of stone covered with matting, on which lay, at a painful angle, a richly dressed Chinaman.  A single glance at his dull, staring, abstracted eyes and half-opened mouth showed me he was in an opium trance.  This was not in itself a novel sight, and I was moving away when I was suddenly startled by the appearance of his hands, which were stretched helplessly before him on his body, and at first sight seemed to be in a kind of wicker cage.

I then saw that his finger-nails were seven or eight inches long, and were supported by bamboo splints.  Indeed, they were no longer human nails, but twisted and distorted quills, giving him the appearance of having gigantic claws.  “Velly big Chinaman,” whispered my cheerful friend; “first-chop man ­high classee ­no can washee ­no can eat ­no dlinke, no catchee him own glub allée same nothee man ­China boy must catchee glub for him, allée time!  Oh, him first-chop man ­you bettee!”

I had heard of this singular custom of indicating caste before, and was amazed and disgusted, but I was not prepared for what followed.  My companion, evidently thinking he had impressed me, grew more reckless as showman, and saying to me, “Now me showee you one funny thing ­heap makee you laugh,” led me hurriedly across a little courtyard swarming with chickens and rabbits, when he stopped before another inclosure.  Suddenly brushing past an astonished Chinaman who seemed to be standing guard, he thrust me into the inclosure in front of a most extraordinary object.  It was a Chinaman, wearing a huge, square, wooden frame fastened around his neck like a collar, and fitting so tightly and rigidly that the flesh rose in puffy weals around his cheeks.  He was chained to a post, although it was as impossible for him to have escaped with his wooden cage through the narrow doorway as it was for him to lie down and rest in it.  Yet I am bound to say that his eyes and face expressed nothing but apathy, and there was no appeal to the sympathy of the stranger.  My companion said hurriedly, ­

“Velly bad man; stealee heap from Chinamen,” and then, apparently alarmed at his own indiscreet intrusion, hustled me away as quickly as possible amid a shrill cackling of protestation from a few of his own countrymen who had joined the one who was keeping guard.  In another moment we were in the street again ­scarce a step from the Plaza, in the full light of Western civilization ­not a stone’s throw from the courts of justice.

My companion took to his heels and left me standing there bewildered and indignant.  I could not rest until I had told my story, but without betraying my companion, to an elder acquaintance, who laid the facts before the police authorities.  I had expected to be closely cross-examined ­to be doubted ­to be disbelieved.  To my surprise, I was told that the police had already cognizance of similar cases of illegal and barbarous punishments, but that the victims themselves refused to testify against their countrymen ­and it was impossible to convict or even to identify them.  “A white man can’t tell one Chinese from another, and there are always a dozen of ’em ready to swear that the man you’ve got isn’t the one.”  I was startled to reflect that I, too, could not have conscientiously sworn to either jailor or the tortured prisoner ­or perhaps even to my cheerful companion.  The police, on some pretext, made a raid upon the premises a day or two afterwards, but without result.  I wondered if they had caught sight of the high-class, first-chop individual, with the helplessly outstretched fingers, as that story I had kept to myself.

But these barbaric vestiges in John Chinaman’s habits did not affect his relations with the San Franciscans.  He was singularly peaceful, docile, and harmless as a servant, and, with rare exceptions, honest and temperate.  If he sometimes matched cunning with cunning, it was the flattery of imitation.  He did most of the menial work of San Francisco, and did it cleanly.  Except that he exhaled a peculiar druglike odor, he was not personally offensive in domestic contact, and by virtue of being the recognized laundryman of the whole community his own blouses were always freshly washed and ironed.  His conversational reserve arose, not from his having to deal with an unfamiliar language, ­for he had picked up a picturesque and varied vocabulary with ease, ­but from his natural temperament.  He was devoid of curiosity, and utterly unimpressed by anything but the purely business concerns of those he served.  Domestic secrets were safe with him; his indifference to your thoughts, actions, and feelings had all the contempt which his three thousand years of history and his innate belief in your inferiority seemed to justify.  He was blind and deaf in your household because you didn’t interest him in the least.  It was said that a gentleman, who wished to test his impassiveness, arranged with his wife to come home one day and, in the hearing of his Chinese waiter who was more than usually intelligent ­to disclose with well-simulated emotion the details of a murder he had just committed.  He did so.  The Chinaman heard it without a sign of horror or attention even to the lifting of an eyelid, but continued his duties unconcerned.  Unfortunately, the gentleman, in order to increase the horror of the situation, added that now there was nothing left for him but to cut his throat.  At this John quietly left the room.  The gentleman was delighted at the success of his ruse until the door reopened and John reappeared with his master’s razor, which he quietly slipped ­as if it had been a forgotten fork ­beside his master’s plate, and calmly resumed his serving.  I have always considered this story to be quite as improbable as it was inartistic, from its tacit admission of a certain interest on the part of the Chinaman.  I never knew one who would have been sufficiently concerned to go for the razor.

His taciturnity and reticence may have been confounded with rudeness of address, although he was always civil enough.  “I see you have listened to me and done exactly what I told you,” said a lady, commending some performance of her servant after a previous lengthy lecture; “that’s very nice.”  “Yes,” said John calmly, “you talkee allée time; talkee allée too much.”  “I always find Ling very polite,” said another lady, speaking of her cook, “but I wish he did not always say to me, ‘Goodnight, John,’ in a high falsetto voice.”  She had not recognized the fact that he was simply repeating her own salutation with his marvelous instinct of relentless imitation, even as to voice.  I hesitate to record the endless stories of his misapplication of that faculty which were then current, from the one of the laundryman who removed the buttons from the shirts that were sent to him to wash that they might agree with the condition of the one offered him as a pattern for “doing up,” to that of the unfortunate employer who, while showing John how to handle valuable china carefully, had the misfortune to drop a plate himself ­an accident which was followed by the prompt breaking of another by the neophyte, with the addition of “Oh, hellee!” in humble imitation of his master.

I have spoken of his general cleanliness; I am reminded of one or two exceptions, which I think, however, were errors of zeal.  His manner of sprinkling clothes in preparing them for ironing was peculiar.  He would fill his mouth with perfectly pure water from a glass beside him, and then, by one dexterous movement of his lips in a prolonged expiration, squirt the water in an almost invisible misty shower on the article before him.  Shocking as this was at first to the sensibilities of many American employers, it was finally accepted, and even commended.  It was some time after this that the mistress of a household, admiring the deft way in which her cook had spread a white sauce on certain dishes, was cheerfully informed that the method was “allée same.”

His recreations at that time were chiefly gambling, for the Chinese theatre wherein the latter produced his plays (which lasted for several months and comprised the events of a whole dynasty) was not yet built.  But he had one or two companies of jugglers who occasionally performed also at American theatres.  I remember a singular incident which attended the debut of a newly arrived company.  It seemed that the company had been taken on their Chinese reputation solely, and there had been no previous rehearsal before the American stage manager.  The theatre was filled with an audience of decorous and respectable San Franciscans of both sexes.  It was suddenly emptied in the middle of the performance; the curtain came down with an alarmed and blushing manager apologizing to deserted benches, and the show abruptly terminated.  Exactly what had happened never appeared in the public papers, nor in the published apology of the manager.  It afforded a few days’ mirth for wicked San Francisco, and it was epigrammatically summed up in the remark that “no woman could be found in San Francisco who was at that performance, and no man who was not.”  Yet it was alleged even by John’s worst detractors that he was innocent of any intended offense.  Equally innocent, but perhaps more morally instructive, was an incident that brought his career as a singularly successful physician to a disastrous close.  An ordinary native Chinese doctor, practicing entirely among his own countrymen, was reputed to have made extraordinary cures with two or three American patients.  With no other advertising than this, and apparently no other inducement offered to the public than what their curiosity suggested, he was presently besieged by hopeful and eager sufferers.  Hundreds of patients were turned away from his crowded doors.  Two interpreters sat, day and night, translating the ills of ailing San Francisco to this medical oracle, and dispensing his prescriptions ­usually small powders ­in exchange for current coin.  In vain the regular practitioners pointed out that the Chinese possessed no superior medical knowledge, and that their religion, which proscribed dissection and autopsies, naturally limited their understanding of the body into which they put their drugs.  Finally they prevailed upon an eminent Chinese authority to give them a list of the remedies generally used in the Chinese pharmacopoeia, and this was privately circulated.  For obvious reasons I may not repeat it here.  But it was summed up ­again after the usual Californian epigrammatic style ­by the remark that “whatever were the comparative merits of Chinese and American practice, a simple perusal of the list would prove that the Chinese were capable of producing the most powerful emetic known.”  The craze subsided in a single day; the interpreters and their oracle vanished; the Chinese doctors’ signs, which had multiplied, disappeared, and San Francisco awoke cured of its madness, at the cost of some thousand dollars.

My Bohemian wanderings were confined to the limits of the city, for the very good reason that there was little elsewhere to go.  San Francisco was then bounded on one side by the monotonously restless waters of the bay, and on the other by a stretch of equally restless and monotonously shifting sand dunes as far as the Pacific shore.  Two roads penetrated this waste:  one to Lone Mountain ­the cemetery; the other to the Cliff House ­happily described as “an eight-mile drive with a cocktail at the end of it.”  Nor was the humor entirely confined to this felicitous description.  The Cliff House itself, half restaurant, half drinking saloon, fronting the ocean and the Seal Rock, where disporting seals were the chief object of interest, had its own peculiar symbol.  The decanters, wine-glasses, and tumblers at the bar were all engraved in old English script with the legal initials “L.  S.” (Locus Sigilli), ­“the place of the seal.”

On the other hand, Lone Mountain, a dreary promontory giving upon the Golden Gate and its striking sunsets, had little to soften its weird suggestiveness.  As the common goal of the successful and unsuccessful, the carved and lettered shaft of the man who had made a name, and the staring blank headboard of the man who had none, climbed the sandy slopes together.  I have seen the funerals of the respectable citizen who had died peacefully in his bed, and the notorious desperado who had died “with his boots on,” followed by an equally impressive cortege of sorrowing friends, and often the self-same priest.  But more awful than its barren loneliness was the utter absence of peacefulness and rest in this dismal promontory.  By some wicked irony of its situation and climate it was the personification of unrest and change.  The incessant trade winds carried its loose sands hither and thither, uncovering the decaying coffins of early pioneers, to bury the wreaths and flowers, laid on a grave of to-day, under their obliterating waves.  No tree to shade them from the glaring sky above could live in those winds, no turf would lie there to resist the encroaching sand below.  The dead were harried and hustled even in their graves by the persistent sun, the unremitting wind, and the unceasing sea.  The departing mourner saw the contour of the very mountain itself change with the shifting dunes as he passed, and his last look beyond rested on the hurrying, eager waves forever hastening to the Golden Gate.

If I were asked to say what one thing impressed me as the dominant and characteristic note of San Francisco, I should say it was this untiring presence of sun and wind and sea.  They typified, even if they were not, as I sometimes fancied, the actual incentive to the fierce, restless life of the city.  I could not think of San Francisco without the trade winds; I could not imagine its strange, incongruous, multigenerous procession marching to any other music.  They were always there in my youthful recollections; they were there in my more youthful dreams of the past as the mysterious vientes generales that blew the Philippine galleons home.

For six months they blew from the northwest, for six months from the southwest, with unvarying persistency.  They were there every morning, glittering in the equally persistent sunlight, to chase the San Franciscan from his slumber; they were there at midday, to stir his pulses with their beat; they were there again at night, to hurry him through the bleak and flaring gas-lit streets to bed.  They left their mark on every windward street or fence or gable, on the outlying sand dunes; they lashed the slow coasters home, and hurried them to sea again; they whipped the bay into turbulence on their way to Contra Costa, whose level shoreland oaks they had trimmed to windward as cleanly and sharply as with a pruning-shears.  Untiring themselves, they allowed no laggards; they drove the San Franciscan from the wall against which he would have leaned, from the scant shade in which at noontide he might have rested.  They turned his smallest fires into conflagrations, and kept him ever alert, watchful, and eager.  In return, they scavenged his city and held it clean and wholesome; in summer they brought him the soft sea-fog for a few hours to soothe his abraded surfaces; in winter they brought the rains and dashed the whole coast-line with flowers, and the staring sky above it with soft, unwonted clouds.  They were always there ­strong, vigilant, relentless, material, unyielding, triumphant.