administration and the stamp put upon it by the public, he said: "For a vindication against aspersion, whether made in the heat of political contests or suggested by the more ignoble rankling of disappointment and revenge, I appeal to the record and to the calm judgment and sense of justice of my fellow-citizens, knowing full well that before such a tribunal and with such an examination the truth in every case will not only appear but receive the credence and support of honest and upright minds."1

Bigler's appeal did not, nor does it yet, yield much in his favor. He was and is generally regarded as a mere politician and by no means a strong or high-minded one. His administration has always been looked upon as signalized by many abuses and very great extravagance. This was doubtless not all his fault; but he might have done much to change it. Perhaps he did not deserve to get another office from the people; but, whether so or not, he never received another. Possibly, and probably, Broderick, if he had possessed the power, would have provided for him; but Broderick never had an opportunity. In 1857, at the instance apparently of his brother and not of Broderick, President Buchanan appointed him United States minister to Chili, which office he held until 1861. Returning to California he was in 1863 a candidate for congress, but was defeated and ran behind his ticket. Though from that time until 1868 professing to practice law at Sacramento, he devoted most of his time to politics, and on the losing side. In 1866 President Johnson named him assessor of internal revenue for the Sacramento district; but his appointment was not confirmed; and in 1867 President Johnson appointed him one of the commissioners to pass upon the construction of the Central Pacific railroad. In 1868 he established the State Capital Reporter newspaper and continued to be its editor until his death. He died at Sacramento, leaving his wife and daughter surviving, on November 29, 1871.2

'Senate Journal, 1856, 37–51.

2 Davis' Political Conventions, 598.

CHAPTER VII.

JOHNSON.

OHN NEELY JOHNSON, the fourth state governor of California, was born in Gibson county, Indiana, August 2, 1825. He was active and comparatively bright and as he grew up studied law. He was admitted to the bar before he was twentyone at Keokuk, Iowa. In 1849 he came across the plains to California, arriving at Sacramento in July of that year. At first he did some teaming and mining; but, after a very short experience of those occupations, he opened a law office in a tent at Sacramento; and in 1850 was elected city attorney. In the same year he was appointed by President Fillmore special territorial census agent. In 1851 he was appointed colonel on the staff of Governor McDougal and as such took part in the so-called Mariposa Indian war, in the course of which Yosemite valley was discovered. In 1852 he was elected to the assembly from Sacramento county and sat in the legislature of 1853. He was supposed to be a Democrat in politics; but joined the Know Nothing or American party early in its Californian history and was rewarded in 1855 with its nomination for governor over a dozen other candidates. He was elected, as has already been stated, by a majority of about five thousand votes over Bigler, the Democratic or Broderick candidate.1

Johnson was inaugurated in presence of the legislature of 1856 on January 9. His address on that occasion was a comparatively short document, which was chiefly taken up with expressions of intense devotion to the Union. Almost immediately after delivering it, he announced to both houses that he had appointed William H. Rhodes his private secretary and sent in to the senate the name of David F. Douglass as secretary of state, asking its 1 Davis' Political Conventions, 598.

confirmation. The senate at once complied. Within a day or two subsequently it gave promise of very thorough and effective reform by indefinitely postponing two applications of county officers for leave of absence-one from Caleb Dorsey, district attorney of Tuolumne county, and the other from Samuel H. Brooks, treasurer of San Joaquin county. But the hopes encouraged by this action were soon afterwards dashed to the ground by the adoption of a resolution by sixteen ayes to nine noes, and concurred in by the assembly, allowing Solomon Heydenfeldt, justice of the supreme court, leave of absence for four months. The other two justices, Murray and Terry, wrote that they were willing to perform all the duties of the court and expressed their assurance that business would not be delayed, nor the public interests suffer; but within a few months, Heydenfeldt being then absent and Terry a prisoner in the hands of the vigilance committee of San Francisco, the business of the court came to a stand-still and the public interests suffered very seriously.'

The new senate also gave promise of effecting an improvement in the practice of changing names. The legislative dockets of the preceding sessions had been lumbered with bills of that character; and from the number presented in the early part of 1856 it seemed that the business was likely to increase. There did not appear to have been much discretion exercised in some of the changes made. In 1854, for instance, a man dissatisfied with being called "William Alexander Smith" had his name changed to "Amor de Cosmos." In 1855 there were more changes than in 1854. In February, 1856, while there were four bills of the kind before the senate, the judiciary committee of that body recommended the indefinite postponement of all of them; and they were accordingly thrown out. That committee further reported against a bill which had been introduced on the subject of changing names, giving its opinion that persons could call themselves what they pleased, and such a law was unnecessary. But this brought out an opposition report to the effect that persons had not the right to change their names; that there was a law of society that forbade it, and that no one should be permitted to do so, except in very special cases and not then 'Senate Journal, 1856, 89-123, 209, 217.

unless authorized by statute.

But with that report the subject seemed to substantially drop. The bill did not pass, and yet people found they could not very well change their names without legislative sanction. Even at this session, later on, a man with the objectionable name of Schlechtway got it changed to Robinson; and the practice of applying to the legislature continued until 1866, when the power was given to the county courts.'

Whatever impression may have been created by Bigler's message about the condition of the country, it soon became apparent that there was trouble and difficulty in many directions. Almost immediately following Bigler's congratulations upon the relinquishment of the state prison by the lessee to the new directors, came a doleful memorial from the directors, representing everything as in a very bad condition and urgently demanding large amounts of money to carry on the institution. They said that the prisoners were actually suffering for want of food and clothing. The work of quarrying stone and making brick was not remunerative in the winter season or for about five months of the year. Nothing could be done until spring. Meanwhile the directors were destitute of supplies for daily use and the prison had no credit. It would take at least fifteen thousand dollars per month to meet expenses. There were one hundred and fifty prisoners in one room, and the erection of a new building or a new prison was absolutely necessary. A few weeks subsequently a joint committee of both houses, after investigation, made a report on the facts. It said that in the seven months from June 1, 1855, the date of the transfer to the directors, to January 1, 1856, there had been created obligations or claims against the state in reference to the prison of over three hundred and eightyeight thousand dollars. More wall had been built than called for; and it had been built in disregard of symmetry and in gross violation of law. The wall inclosure, which was intended to be a rectangle, was one hundred feet out of square, the south wall being one hundred feet longer than the west and forming an acute angle at the southwest corner and an obtuse angle at the

1 Stats. 1854, 37; Senate Journal, 1856, 237, 238, 461-464; Stats. 1856, 52; Stats. 1865-6, 103.

northwest. The mortar had been made of sand from the beach and mixed with salt water, so that it attracted moisture and would not set; and the work itself was very poor. The title to sixteen acres of land adjoining the prison grounds proper, which James M. Estell, the lessee, had assumed to sell and which had been purchased by the state, was invalid on account of Estell's irregularities. The committee in conclusion said it did not want to charge fraud in reference to the state prison affairs, though the testimony beyond question authorized suspicions of it; and it recommended that suits should be brought by the attorneygeneral against the directors for damages for neglect and irregular and informal proceedings in office. But unfortunately the exposure of these abuses had hardly been made when they were covered up. No suits were commenced. After immediate temporary relief, an act was passed making a permanent appropriation and creating a few more offices; and the subject was then dropped until it rose, in uglier form than ever, to trouble the next governor.1

The exposure of abuses in state prison affairs seemed to excite inquiry in several other directions and occasioned a few additional sharp reports. One was in regard to the extravagance practiced in various state offices, which was shown to have been so extensive and reckless as to be fraudulent. Another was in regard to a certain judgment of nearly seventy-three thousand dollars obtained on a worthless claim by Jesse Carothers against the state in the superior court of San Francisco, of which John Satterlee was judge. The scheme seemed to have been worked by several adepts at such business and chiefly by means of a compromising stipulation procured by Carothers from S. C. Hastings, the attorney-general. The report pronounced the agreement between Hastings and Carothers fraudulent and charged general gross and culpable negligence. But as it further appeared that Judge David O. Shattuck, who succeeded Satterlee, had set aside the judgment as null and void, there was nothing of value lost. Still another report was in reference to alleged frauds of Abia A. Selover, the auctioneer employed to sell the state's remaining interest in the beach-and-water-lot 'Senate Journal, 1856, 149, 150, 356-383; Stats. 1856, 27, 48, 86.