A couple months ago, Charles wrote about the Ada Hancock explosion, and how the actual incident has become a silly treasure hunting tale. I followed up with a post about one of the actual consequences, if you will, of the Ada Hancock accident. Neve mind fake treasure: an historian finds wealth in boring stuff like changes in laws.

To recap, the Ada Hancock was a 42-ton steam tug in Los Angeles harbor. On April 27, 1863, the boat exploded in transit, killing or injuring 46 people. Both Wells Fargo's agent and messenger lost their lives.

George F. Hooper was aboard as well, and a large part of the treasure that was lost in the explosion was his. Hooper was a Fort Yuma, California merchant and a good customer of Wells Fargo. (He was also future member of the Wells Fargo family, founding the First National Gold Bank of San Francisco, which eventually joined Wells Fargo in 1986 after a history of various mergers.) As I wrote earlier, he sued Wells Fargo for the loss of about $11,000 worth of gold that approached 40 pounds in weight.

In court papers, Hooper’s attorney Hall McAllister  detailed just how special Wells Fargo’s service was. (McAllister used the technical term “bailee,” from the verb “to bail.”  A Bailee takes charge of goods for a special purpose and returns them when he completes the task.) Express companies, McAllister wrote,

are paid, not in order to commit to others for transportation the thing being bailed to themselves, but that they may carry and deliver it. They receive a higher freight than ordinary bailees, because they profess to exercise a closer custody of, a more special supervision over the goods entrusted to them than does the ordinary carrier. (my emphasis.)

Furthermore,

the packages bailed to them are generally of small bulk, but of great value; they remain during the entire transportation in the personal charge of the express messenger, and their delivery is made, not at the wharf or warehouse, as in the case of ordinary goods, but specially by the express employee at the office or residence of the consignee.

McAllister pointed out Wells Fargo's outstanding personal service, even as he was using it for the purposes suing us! The California Supreme Court accepted the argument and the Company had to make good on the loss.

Interestingly, the reasoning behind the Court's decision that cost the Company $11,000 is the very integrity that made Wells Fargo's reputation! Because the Company took such personal care of its business, any shipment was our absolute responsibility. Wells Fargo accepted that responsibility because anything less, even in the face of losses, was sub-standard.