Bates' case came on in March. Meanwhile he had been removed from office and the grand jury of Sacramento county had indicted him for substantially the same offense. He alleged these facts as a reason why he ought not to be tried by impeachment; but his plea was overruled. He had previously very strenuously denied that there was any corruption in his office; but, when his technical plea was decided against him, he refused to answer to the merits and was convicted by a practically unanimous vote. When he came up for sentence in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, it appearing that he had in the meanwhile resigned, the sentence recited the facts of his conviction. on all the charges alleged against him and his resignation after impeachment, and then declared him forever afterwards disqualified from holding any office of trust, honor or profit under the state.' Whitman, on the other hand, made a very determined struggle and fought the charges against him inch by inch. Among other incidents of the trial, E. A. Rowe, who had been indicted by the grand jury of Sacramento county for his part in the transactions complained of, was brought in from prison as a witness; but objection was made and he was withdrawn. The result of his trial was an acquittal on all the charges-the highest vote against him on any of them being only six.'

1 Senate Journal, 1857, 406, 408-425, 457-465.

2 Senate Journal, 1857, 268, 437-447, 596-601, 744-748.

CHAPTER VIII.

BRODERICK.

RODERICK had at length found his opportunity. He in

BRO

substance controlled the legislature of 1857. He had never for a moment given up his determination to become United States senator or loitered in its pursuit. He had, after failing to bring on an election in 1854, when he might have been elected, managed with consummate skill to postpone an election in 1855 and again in 1856, when he could not have been elected. On both these occasions, it looked as if he were completely defeated, without a chance of recovery. But, instead of becoming discouraged or giving up the struggle, his apparent defeat only seemed to give him greater courage and impel him to greater exertion. He was now on top-and with an unfailing and overwhelming support. But when he found everything in his own hands, he no longer sought the place for which he had previously battled. The term of Gwin's successor, which he had so persistently fought for, commenced in March, 1855, so that in 1857 two years of it had already expired. On the other hand Weller's term was to expire in March, 1857, and the term of his successor would commence at that time. Weller's successor would therefore hold two years longer than Gwin's; and under the circumstances, being able to dictate such terms as he pleased, Broderick now demanded the succession to Weller or the full six years' term, instead of the succession to Gwin for only four years.

The regular course would have been for the legislature to elect a successor to Gwin first and then a successor to Weller. But this did not suit Broderick's purpose. He wanted to secure his own election and then name his colleague. He knew that the election for the long term first would be an irregularity; but he cared nothing for irregularity. He preferred a course which

would exhibit original power. He wanted to be Cæsar and he became Cæsar. When the legislature met, upon counting his direct supporters or men who were devoted to him first and last, he found that he lacked two of a majority. These he had to gain from the supporters of either Weller, Gwin or Latham, all of whom were candidates. He appears to have first proposed to support Weller for Gwin's place, if Weller's friends would give him the required votes; but they refused on the ground that Weller was entitled to succeed himself. He then arranged with the friends of Latham, at that time United States collector of customs at San Francisco, that in consideration of the required votes, Latham should have Gwin's place. And it was on this understanding that the Democratic senatorial caucus of 1857, which met on January 8, resolved that the long term should be first filled and that Broderick should be elected. An attempt was then made to agree upon a candidate to fill the short term and several ballots were taken, but without success; and the caucus election was then postponed until the next evening. In accordance with the understanding, when the houses met in joint convention on January 9, Charles Westmoreland moved to elect for the long term first. Assemblyman John H. McKune moved to vote for both terms at one and the same time. Lieutenantgovernor Anderson, who was president of the convention, ruled that both motions were out of order and that the short term would have to be filled first. Westmoreland appealed from this decision and the appeal was sustained by a vote of sixty-six to twenty-six. McKune's motion was then lost and Westmoreland's adopted.1

Nominations for the long term being then in order, Frank Tilford nominated Broderick, Maurice C. Blake nominated Edward Stanly as Republican candidate, and Jesse O. Goodwin nominated James W. Coffroth as Know Nothing candidate. There were one hundred and twelve votes, of which fifty-seven were necessary for a choice. Broderick received seventy-nine, Coffroth seventeen, and Stanly fourteen. Broderick was then declared elected United States senator for the term of six years commencing March 4, 1857. His commission was delivered to him next day. He had Senate Journal, 1857, 86, 87; O'Meara, 151-154.

thus reached the position for which he had been struggling so many years. The fight he had made was a remarkable one. From the time he had conceived the idea of becoming United States senator, he had pursued his purpose with indefatigable vigor. Repeated defeat could not turn him from it. He spent his own money and the money of his friends to accomplish it. He had succeeded; and he exulted in his victory. Never before had there been such a struggle, nor has there been since. It was unique. It stands alone in the history of contests for the United States senatorship on the Pacific coast-and for that matter in the Union.1

Almost from the moment that Broderick had thus reached a commanding position, he manifested his imperious disposition. He was determined to be dictator and would brook no opposition to his will. He had almost from the beginning of his political career voted against slavery and the slave power; but in other respects he had shown no broad-minded or enlightened statesmanship. He thought of little but his own elevation. He stuck with extraordinary sincerity and persistence to his friends; but he had enemies to punish and he took delight in "pulling out their claws" as he termed it. He had risen with the help of the friends of Latham; and it was supposed that the election of Latham as Gwin's successor was thereby assured; and with most men it would have been assured. But Broderick did not want a colleague who would not be subservient to his beck and control. He therefore took his own time to make up his mind who among the aspirants would suit him best, and, to all appearance, he enjoyed keeping them upon the rack and having them look upon himself and himself alone as the master in whose hands their fate reposed.

Gwin and Latham were the leading candidates for the second place; but there were several other aspirants, among whom were Joseph W. McCorkle and Alexander P. Crittenden. Either of the last-named would have suited Broderick better than Latham or Gwin; but neither had sufficient strength, even with Broderick's aid, to make a successful fight; and the contest was soon narrowed down to the leading candidates. In the caucus of 1Assembly Journal, 1857, 98, 99; O'Meara, 154-157.

January 8, on the first ballot for the short term, Gwin had received twenty-six votes; Latham, twenty-one; McCorkle, fifteen, and Crittenden, two; and on the second ballot, Gwin twenty-five; Latham twenty-four, and McCorkle fifteen. On the evening of Friday, January 9, when the caucus met again, four ballots were taken with a slight gain for Gwin; but nothing decisive. It did not yet suit Broderick to name his colleague. On Saturday, January 10, the excitement about the matter among the politicians at Sacramento was worked up to fever heat. It appears that in the bargaining that had taken place between Broderick and Latham or their friends, Senator Frank Tilford, a friend of Broderick, had been promised Latham's support for the office of collector of customs at San Francisco; and the promise was given in a letter to him signed by Latham. This letter Tilford suddenly discovered to be missing; and he charged that it had been abstracted from his desk either by Latham or some one of his supporters in order to destroy the evidence of the pledge and evade its fulfillment. Whatever may have been the truth in reference to Latham's connection with the affair, Tilford's complaint and violent denunciations contributed to a very large extent in injuring Latham's prospects, which were still regarded as nearly certain, and to break down a support that could not again be rallied to Latham's side. On the other hand it began to be whispered around that Latham, while collector of San Francisco in 1856 and in control of the revenue-cutter in that port, had not only not made use of it against the vigilance committee but had agreed with the leaders of the committee that they should not be interfered with by it in their deportation of exiles by sea. It was further urged against Latham that he had allowed his brother to serve as an officer in the vigilance committee and at the same time retain an office in the customhouse-and this of itself, it was urged by Latham's opponents, was enough to show him not a good Democrat and certainly not a good friend to Broderick and Broderick's friends.'

Latham was still strong, notwithstanding the charges against him. Tilford was without any very great difficulty placated; and the vigilance committee objection was regarded as rather 'O'Meara, 158-172.