and it was evident not only that both could not be true, but that one or the other was committing willful perjury. Even the testimony of the other witnesses was conflicting, altogether showing a very bad state of affairs.'

After the hearing of all the testimony, counsel consumed several days in their arguments, Williams having by previous arrangement the opening and the closing. His argument was directed to the law and the facts as presented by the evidence and as such was brilliant. On the other hand Baker said little or nothing about the law and facts; he saw it was useless; but he launched forth into a powerful political philippic, which lasted for four hours and lacerated the defense deeply with its fierce and merciless invective. He depicted Broderick as a prowling lion, seeking whom he might devour; Selover as the subservient jackal, hunting prey for him, and Palmer's fond embrace as the golden clasp with the hidden sting of death to the honor of its encompassed victim. On February 3 a vote of the senate was taken and the result was ridiculously absurd. In the first place it was resolved, on motion of Gaven D. Hall, by a vote of twenty-one ayes to seven noes, that the statement made by Peck, alleging against Palmer an attempt to commit bribery, had not been sustained by the evidence; and in the second place it was resolved, on motion of Henry A. Crabb, by seventeen ayes to one no, that the decision was not intended in any degree to reflect upon the honor and dignity of Mr. Peck. The single dissenter, who voted against Peck's honor and dignity and thus preserved a show of consistency, was David Mahoney, who was entirely and thoroughly a Broderick man.'

The exposure made by Peck did not prevent the fight from going on or occasion any change in the manner of its conduct. Broderick was still determined to bring on the election because he knew that, if he could do so, he would be chosen United States senator and thereby accomplish the purpose of his life. Meanwhile, to succeed, strength had to be gathered from every side and everything else had to be subordinated to that one object. Among other influences that were brought to bear was the 1Senate Journal, 1854, 118, 119.

2 Senate Journal, 1854, 154-159.

question of the permanent location of the state capital, which from the commencement of the government had been of absorbing interest. Broderick apparently cared little or nothing about the matter; but a number of his friends and supporters were very greatly in favor of Sacramento; and, as it turned out, the capital became located there as the price of Broderick votes. A bill for the purpose of removing to Sacramento had been introduced into the senate early in January; but it had been rejected by nineteen noes to fourteen ayes.' A like bill had been introduced into the assembly and a heated discussion followed, in which a quietus seemed to be put to the proposition by a consideration of the fact that the capital had already been removed seven different times since 1849 at a cost of nearly a hundred thousand dollars and that it would cost something like fifty thousand dollars to make another removal. But as the election contest went on, a new bill to locate the capital at Sacramento was introduced into the senate and, after considerable strife, was finally passed and title approved on February 20. It was then rushed into the assembly, which was entirely devoted to Broderick, where it was passed on February 24; and the next day it was approved by Bigler. On the same day both houses adopted a concurrent resolution to adjourn to meet at Sacramento on March 1, 1854; and thus was accomplished one important purpose merely as a preliminary or stepping-stone to another and entirely different one.3

Broderick's fight, however, was not yet won. The removal of the capital did not accomplish what had been expected of it. When the houses met at Sacramento, it was only to renew the battle and much more desperately than before. It was well known that the assembly would pass the bill for bringing on the election whenever Broderick might direct it to do so; and therefore his opponents confined their efforts to beating him in the senate. An important vote on the bill was fixed for March 6. As the forces for and against it were nearly evenly divided, it was desirable that every senator should be in his place; and several

'Senate Journal, 1854, 85, 100.

2 Assembly Journal, 1854, 91–96.

3

Senate Journal, 1854, 188, 220-249; O'Meara, 66, 67.

attempts were made at the last moment not only to buy a vote for the bill but also to keep one or two senators from voting against it. Peck for one had to be guarded against being kidnapped and kept away. But when the vote came on, every man was in his place. The assembly in the morning had passed the bill by a vote of forty-one to thirty-eight and then adjourned to witness the struggle in the senate. In that body great excitement prevailed, manifested by an ominous silence. The chamber was crowded. Broderick himself was present, wrought up to the highest state of tension. The vote was taken by roll-call, and each senator, as his name was called, answered as had been expected except Jacob Grewell of Santa Clara, who to the surprise of nearly everybody and to the consternation of the opponents of the bill, when his name was reached, voted for it. His vote, which if given the other way would have defeated Broderick, made a tie of seventeen to seventeen; and this was immediately resolved in favor of Broderick by the casting vote of Samuel Purdy, lieutenant-governor and president of the senate.'

The Broderick men broke forth in a tumult of cheering and shouting. They rose and rushed from their places to congratulate one another and their chief, who had made the great fight. It was a time for triumph and exultation. No more business could be done that day; and the senate adjourned. But, as a matter of fact, the fight was not yet won. Grewell was essentially a weak man and could no more be depended on for one side than for the other. While the Broderick men had hold of him, he was for Broderick; but in the course of the night after the vote, the other side got hold of him; and when the opposition had hold of him, he was for the opposition. The latter induced him the next day to move a reconsideration, which was carried by a vote of eighteen to fifteen; and the same day the bill that had passed the assembly was rejected in the senate by a vote of seventeen to fourteen. The second day afterwards, as soon as the senate bill could be reached, the entire subject matter was indefinitely postponed by a vote of nineteen to twelve; and a motion to reconsider was defeated by a vote of nineteen to eleven. With these votes the project of forcing on the election 1O'Meara, 67-73; Senate Journal, 1854, 260.

was ruined; and Broderick's hopes of seeing himself United States senator were, for the time at least, hopelessly crushed.'

Though thus defeated in his attempt to bring on the election and take advantage of his admitted majority on joint ballot, Broderick did not by any means give up his contest for Gwin's place. He was not the kind of a man to give up while hope remained; and he was not one to believe there was no hope while life remained. His defeat only nerved him to stronger and more persistent effort. But in the meanwhile great changes were going on in national politics, creating new conditions and arraying parties in new combinations. The gradual loss by southern politicians of the preponderating power in the councils of the nation and their efforts to resist the inevitable fall of the socalled slaveocracy was rapidly precipitating the irrepressible conflict. Broderick, though born south of Mason and Dixon's line, was an anti-slavery man. Almost from the start of his career in California, he had manifested a deep-rooted antipathy to southern domination. In 1850 he had opposed a bill leveled against the immigration of free negroes; and in 1852 he had voted against the fugitive slave law. He had denounced United States Senator Stephen A. Douglas and his truckling policy on the subject of slavery; and in 1854, when a resolution was introduced into the California legislature in favor of the Nebraska bill, in which Douglas indorsed squatter sovereignty, the fugitive slave law and the repeal of the Missouri compromise for the territories, though there were Democratic votes enough to adopt it, the out-and-out Broderick men voted against it.'

In effect Broderick was at that time of no party except his own. He still claimed to be a Democrat; but he was not a southern or chivalry Democrat, nor a Douglas or Nebraska-bill Democrat. He was simply an Anti-Lecompton or rather an Anti-southern-domination Democrat. He therefore, though with a strong personal following, stood substantially alone; but he was also backed by a powerful underlying, not yet developed but 1 Senate Journal, 1854, 264-285; O'Meara, 73-81.

"Journals of Legislature, 1850, 347, 373.

* Senate Journal, 1854, 450, 451; Assembly Journal, 1854, 508; Stats. 1854, 274.

rapidly growing, anti-slavery sentiment, which in the end. redeemed, ennobled and made a hero of him. As already intimated, his election scheme had hardly failed before he entered with redoubled energy upon the campaign for the next autumn; and he devoted all his time and effort to the election of delegates to the Democratic state convention, which had been fixed to meet at Sacramento on July 18, 1854. All this time, however, his enemies were not idle. They were no longer united as they had been during the struggle in the legislature; but they were numerous; and in many places they elected sets of delegates, in opposition to those elected by Broderick's friends, with the intention of making a fight in the convention itself as to which set should be entitled to seats. Meanwhile Broderick had managed by his mastery in the state convention of 1853 to become chairman of the Democratic state central committee; and as such it became his duty to make arrangements for the convention, call it to order and set its machinery in motion.

The Democratic state convention of 1854, on account of the circumstances under which it was held and what took place at it, was one of the most remarkable ever held. Broderick had hired the First Baptist church building on Fourth Street in Sacramento for its sessions; and he so arranged the seating of the various delegations as to have all his own friends in front next the large platform, upon which the officers were to be seated; while the seats of opposition delegates were more removed; and for some none at all were provided. In addition to this, the Broderick delegates were instructed to obtain access to the building by a rear entrance in advance of the hour for meeting, while the opposition would have to wait until the front doors should be unlocked and thrown open for general admission. As it happened, however, the anti-Broderick opposition, whom his tactics tended to unite, got wind of his plans and determined by a bold move on their own part to anticipate and defeat them. They accordingly joined and agreed upon ex-governor John McDougal as their candidate for president and upon a list of anti-Broderick delegates as committees on credentials and organization. To carry out their plans a body of thirty determined men, with their candidates in their midst, just before three