committee. It appears that he had without authority from the assembly directed John T. Diossy to act as clerk of that committee and gave him a certificate of services performed, by means of which Diossy had drawn two hundred and thirty-five dollars. The judiciary committee, which had in the meanwhile been bickering over the subject of a clerk, appointed a sub-committee to investigate Bell's conduct; and this sub-committee reported that it was "a gross wrong and one at least that calls upon all honorable men to condemn." But another larger committee subsequently found that, although Bell had gone too far, he had meant no fraud; and the matter with that was allowed to drop.' The second matter of unusual character above referred to was the impeachment and trial of James H. Hardy, judge of the district court of the sixteenth judicial district of the state. Hardy, who though without much learning had considerable ability as a lawyer and politician, was a violent partisan of the extreme southern type. Though not polished or refined, he had always been prominent in the chivalry councils and in the great chivalry year of 1859 was first appointed and then elected district judge. One of his main achievements in the judicial office was to so manage as to preside in the trial of Terry for the killing of Broderick and to so rule on that trial as to render Terry's acquittal, as many people thought, a foregone conclusion. The memory of this conduct among other consequences of his work on the bench, in addition to an impudent habit he had of publicly using noisy secession language, induced the assembly of 1862 to present to the senate articles of impeachment against him. The articles, fifteen in number, which were presented on April 10, charged Hardy with high misdemeanors, corrupt misconduct in office and willful neglect of the duties thereof. They went on to specify a large number of cases in which he was alleged to have acted corruptly, including the Terry case, and concluded with a charge, numbered article fifteen, of using seditious and treasonable language, particularly on June 25, 1861, at Jackson, Amador county, on which occasion he had offered a toast to "Jeff. Davis and the southern confederacy," and on June 26, 1861, at Angels, Calaveras county, when he had said of the American flag, "That 1Assembly Journal, 1862, 311, 312, 329, 330.

is an old woman's rag and ought to be torn down." Subsequently on April 26 seven supplemental charges were presented; and a demand was made for his removal from office.1

On April 28, 1862, the senate resolved itself into a high court of impeachment, as provided by the constitution, for Hardy's trial. A committee of the assembly appointed for the purpose came forward as prosecutors and Hardy with counsel appeared in defense. Many witnesses were sworn and examined; and the trial lasted, consuming portions of nearly every day, until May 14, when a vote was taken upon each article of impeachment separately. The result was a vote of "not guilty” upon every article except the fifteenth, which charged him with seditious and treasonable language. Upon that he was adjudged guilty-the vote being twenty-four for conviction against twelve for acquittal, or the required two-thirds. Immediately after the voting was concluded, a resolution was presented and adopted to the effect that Hardy, having been convicted of the high crime and misdemeanor charged in article fifteen, it was adjudged that he should be and was thereby declared suspended and removed from his office of district judge of the sixteenth judicial district. An attempt was made by his friends to suspend him for only six months, but it failed; and absolute removal was determined on by a vote of twenty-one to fourteen. The high court of impeachment was then declared dissolved; and Hardy as a factor in public affairs virtually dropped out of sight.

Two other matters, unimportant in themselves but significant as throwing light upon the condition of affairs in the legislature of 1862, may be mentioned. One was the matter of the arrest of Allen P. Dudley, a lawyer of Stockton, for contempt on April 5. The committee of the assembly, which prepared the charges against Judge Hardy, had called Dudley as a witness; and he had answered nearly every inquiry; but, when asked whether Hardy had not employed him as an attorney and been guilty of corruption in certain cases pending in Hardy's own court, Dudley pleaded professional privilege and declined to answer. It was thereupon ordered that he should be arrested. Upon volun

1 Senate Journal, 1862, 543-549, 625-629.

2 Senate Journal, 1862, 634-719; Assembly Journal, 1862, 559-573.

tarily appearing at the bar of the assembly, he stated the facts, disclaimed any intentional contempt and said that he would answer if the house overruled his plea of privilege. On motion of Speaker Barstow, he was exonerated and discharged, but required to answer. Several of the supplemental articles of impeachment against Hardy were based, in part at least, on Dudley's testimony and the vote of the high court of impeachment upon them was very close, but not sufficient to convict.'

The other matter was an assault and battery by Assemblyman R. D. Ferguson of Sacramento upon Speaker Barstow on April 9. It appears that Barstow had made several rulings as speaker, of which Ferguson complained. When the two met in the lobby after the session, Ferguson charged Barstow with insulting him and demanded, if no insult was intended, that Barstow should so state from the chair. Barstow disclaimed intending any insult and agreed to so state if a proper occasion arose. But Ferguson, instead of being satisfied, proceeded in a violent and boisterous tone to charge Barstow with having previously treated him in a "petty, mean, tyrannical and cowardly" manner. Barstow replied that under the circumstances he no longer considered himself bound to say anything from the chair to please Mr. Ferguson and would not do so. Upon this Ferguson, who was physically large while Barstow was physically small, struck the latter in the face and would probably have gone further if others had not interfered. He, however, continued his violent talk and spoke about dragging Barstow from the speaker's chair. On the other hand Barstow simply remarked that Ferguson had not evinced his usual good judgment. And with this the affair would probably have ended, but that the assembly took it up on its own account and after an investigation adopted a resolution requiring Ferguson to forthwith render an ample apology to the house for his assault upon its presiding officer. He, however, was unwilling to acknowledge his offense; and on the last day of the session a resolution was adopted by a vote of thirty-five to sixteen to the effect that he merited the censure of the house "for his ungentlemanly and insulting conduct towards the speaker.""

1 Assembly Journal, 1862, 512, 513.

2 Assembly Journal, 1862, 634, 635, 758; San Francisco Evening Bulletin, April 9, 1862.

On May 15, the houses adjourned; and both Shafter in the senate and Barstow in the assembly made valedictory remarks. Both were intensely patriotic, unreservedly for the Union, determined to put down the rebellion at any cost and confident of the future. Shafter in addition referred to the legislation of the session as highly essential to the general welfare of the state. He said that "though demagogues, aided by a press ever too ready to criticise and condemn," had sought to hamper and throw discredit upon it "by the hackneyed cry of special legislation," yet it was evidently demanded by the exigencies of the times and would "tend to the more rapid development and improvement of our youthful but giant state." Barstow spoke of the black clouds of war that had hung gloomily over the country when the legislature met on January 6, and how day by day that cloud had been lifted more and more and the news of victory after victory to the national banner brought to our ears. He spoke of propositions for peace; but he insisted that the nation could not treat with traitors in arms. When the government should be crowned with victory, it should remember that moderation in triumph and mercy in the dispensation of justice were ever to be included among the attributes of true greatness. There should be no other revenge for the past than that which would afford the best guarantee for the future. The nation wanted peace; it loved peace; but it did not want peace at the sacrifice of the Union. It demanded that when the contest was once settled, it should be settled forever."

'Senate Journal, 1862, 731, 732.

'Assembly Journal, 1862, 759-762.

CHAPTER XII.

STANFORD (CONTINUED).

N the meanwhile the civil war in the slave states had been

IN

going on with great energy on both sides. The result of the

first important battle between the north and the south, which took place at Bull Run on July 21, 1861, had given the south immense encouragement. Its people seemed to consider themselves justified in thinking that the north could not or would not fight, and particularly that it could never coerce the south. By that time all the states that composed the Confederacy-that is to say, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee and Virginia-had seceded, one after the other; and there was danger of other states following. The southern leaders at once called for new levies of troops, amounting to about a hundred thousand men, to whom they virtually promised victory and triumph. Their language, based upon the defeat and rout of the northern forces at Bull Run, was arrogant and boastful. They declared that one southerner was equal to three northerners; and they laughed to scorn the idea of a northern army invading and for any length of time being allowed to hold footing on what they called "the sacred soil of the south." So secure did they feel that they ordered every male citizen of the United States to depart within forty days from the Confederacy and proceeded, with the most searching inquisition and under immense penalties in case of concealment, to confiscate the property of all persons who acknowledged allegiance to the Union. On the other hand the north began to realize—what it could hardly credit at first— that the south was in earnest and determined, and that, instead of a game of parade and bluff, it had a desperate conflict on its hands. But at last, finding that all its efforts to avoid the arbitrament of