the State Agricultural Society; on March 23, a bill for the construction of a turnpike road in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties on account of a fatal mistake in it; on March 29, a bill to authorize the commissioners of the funded debt of San Francisco to compromise and settle claims and convey real estate on the ground that it would unsettle titles and encourage litigation; on April 4, a bill to aid in the construction of the Californian portion of the Pacific railroad from San Francisco to the eastern boundary of the state, a bill to amend the civil practice act on account of a fatal error in it, and a bill to authorize the Oakland and San Antonio Steam Navigation Company to improve the navigation of San Antonio creek in Alameda county. All these vetoes were sustained.1

But there were a number of other vetoes by Low that were not sustained, and particularly when it became apparent that he rather enjoyed the exercise of the veto power. On February 15 he vetoed a bill to construct a turnpike in Amador county, a bill to construct a turnpike in Marin county and a bill to authorize the administrator of Maria Ygnacia Amador de Alvarado, deceased, to sell real estate. These were all passed over the veto almost unanimously. On March 28 he vetoed a bill extending the franchise of a toll road in Tulare county from twenty to twentyfive years, which was passed over the veto unanimously in the senate and by a vote of fifty-two against eight in the assembly. Several other vetoes were sustained by a bare scratch in the senate. One was of a bill authorizing the administrator of Josiah B. Royal, deceased, to sell the property of the estate; another of a bill authorizing the executors of Elias S. Cooper, deceased, to sell real estate; another of a bill authorizing Lucian B. Healy to sell real estate, and another of a bill authorizing the guardian of certain minors to sell their estate."

Every sentiment or proposition in favor of the Union was of course received with welcome by the legislature of 1863-4. On December 22, 1863, the governor transmitted a letter from General Joseph Hooker, written on September 20, 1863, in reference 1Senate Journal, 1863-4, 110, 131, 232, 410, 460, 494, 518, 529, 531, 587, 688, 690; Assembly Journal, 1863-4, 293, 492.

2

Assembly Journal, 1863-4, 356, 381, 426, 483,488, 601, 608, 625; Sen ate Journal, 1863-4, 380, 566.

to the resolution of the previous legislature in recognition of his splendid services in the national cause and the fame reflected by them on the name of California. Hooker returned his thanks; said that his name was borne on the army register as a representative of his adopted state, and added that, next to honorable and complete success over the enemies of the Union, he could esteem nothing more highly than California's good opinion of the manner in which he had performed his duties. At the suggestion of the governor, the letter was spread upon the journals of both houses.' On January 20, 1864, a series of resolutions was adopted expressing the most uncompromising loyalty of the people of the state to the Union, indorsing all and each of the measures of the national administration for the suppression of the rebellion, pledging the faith of the state to stand by and support President Lincoln in his emancipation proclamation and his determination not to retract it, giving in its adherence to his plan of reconstruction of the rebellious states and, after some further expressions of unswerving patriotism, recommending him to re-election as "the instrument selected by Providence to lead the country in safety through all its perils and restore it again to a peace in which no element of discord shall be found." On January 29, a resolution was offered in the senate asking United States Senator James A. McDougall to resign his seat for the reason that he did not represent the loyalty of the people of California. There were many amendments offered in both houses, some of them reflecting unfavorably though perhaps too truthfully upon his intemperance; but the houses finally on February 9 settled upon a distinct series of resolutions, charging that his associations and political and personal conduct were a willful misrepresentation of the wishes, opinions and habits of the people of California, and calling upon all loyal men in and out of office to exonerate the state from the imputations which his conduct was so well calculated to invite.“

There were a number of persons in the state who, notwith

Stats. 1853. 795.

2 Senate Journal, 1863-4, 120, 121; Assembly Journal, 1863-4, 156. Stats. 1863-4, 546.

Senate Journal, 1863-4, 209, 228, 288; Assembly Journal, 1863-4, 203, 272,329.

standing the general satisfaction given by the specific contract law or gold coin act, still thought it unpatriotic and desired its repeal. Several propositions of this kind were presented, but immediately from many different parts of the state came remonstrances against such repeal. On February 6, 1864, Salmon P. Chase, the secretary of the treasury at Washington, was asked by telegraph for his opinion on the subject; and he replied that he thought the gold law against national policy and that he would be much gratified to see California declare "in favor of one currency for the whole people" by its repeal. But the people in general were very decidedly of a different opinion; and the law remained and remains on the statute-book. On March 4, 1864, upon the announcement of the death on that day of Thomas Starr King, the orator and patriot, the houses resolved that he had been a tower of strength to the cause of the country and that from his ability, learning and eloquence the people of the state had derived the most enduring benefit. They therefore ordered the flag on the capitol to be displayed at half mast and adjourned from March 5 to March 8 in honor of his memory.1

At the same session of the legislature, apparently in response to the recommendations of Governor Stanford's message, various different bills were offered for a digest of the statutes. It was a work that was much needed for the reason that the statutory law was in the utmost confusion and so scattered that it was extremely difficult for any one, except an expert, to know anything about it. Most of the bills were introduced into the assembly; but it was found towards the end of the session that the subject could not be satisfactorily settled; and all the propositions were indefinitely postponed. Before the beginning of the next session, private enterprise, entirely unaided by the state, supplied the want and made it comparatively easy a few years afterwards to formulate the series of codifications known as the California codes.

As a general rule the conduct of this legislature was earnest and dignified. There were no disgraceful exposures, scenes or

'Senate Journal, 1863-4, 287; Assembly Journal, 1863-4, 461; Stats. 1863-4, 550.

Assembly Journal, 1863-4, 580.

charges, as there had been in previous legislatures; and, if there was any corruption, it was so secret as to be practically unknown. But there was nevertheless a touch of comedy, if not farce. On March 15, on the passage in the senate of a bill for the relief of Joseph A. Moultrie, Horace Hawes declined to vote. R. C. Gaskill, notwithstanding the ballot was twenty-one in favor of the bill to eight against it, moved that Hawes should be required to vote. After much bickering, he moved a resolution which was adopted that if Hawes still persistently declined to vote, the presiding officer should be required to reprimand him for contumacious refusal to comply with the rules of the senate. On the adoption of this resolution, George Pearce declined to vote. After the reprimand of Hawes, which was somewhat perfunctory, L. M. Foulke moved that Pearce should be called before the bar of the senate and give his excuse. Thereupon Hawes, in speaking on the proposition, made use of pointed language to the effect that a statement that he had “absolutely refused to vote when requested or required so to do by the senate" was a falsehood. To this James E. Hale took exception; and Hawes made an explanation which was accepted by the senate as satisfactory. Hawes then moved that Foulke's resolution against Pearce should be amended by including the name of every senator who might be found by referring to the journal to have declined to vote. This was declared out of order; the resolution was adopted; and Pearce made an explanation and was excused. The next day Gaskill and Hale, having failed to answer to their names at roll-call as required by the rules of the senate, Hawes moved that they should be reprimanded by the presiding officer for their contumacious conduct; but by that time the senate was apparently tired and put an end to the subject by tabling it.'

On April 4, 1864, the legislature adjourned; and there was not to be another session until December, 1865. By that time many changes, and particularly in reference to the war and the condition of the Union, had occurred. Grant, as has been seen, had plunged with the army of the Potomac into the wilderness between Fredericksburg and Richmond and in June, having got around to the south of Petersburg, invested that place. One of 1 Senate Journal, 1863-4, 468–472.

his first moves, after establishing his position there, was to reach out southwestward with the object of seizing the railroads and thereby intercepting Lee's communications with the southern country and cutting off his supplies. It was perfectly well understood by Lee that this would be terribly disastrous, if not fatal, to him; and he was obliged to send out his best troops to resist Grant's steady and persistent efforts to accomplish a purpose of such great importance. The struggle for the railroads running southward became therefore as it were the chief controversy and so remained, while the main armies faced each other about Petersburg, until the next spring. In July, however, very soon after Grant took up his position on the south side of Petersburg, Lee attempted to make a diversion by sending General Jubal A. Early into the Shenandoah valley with a force strong enough to menace Washington. He hoped in this manner to induce Grant to detach so many troops from before Petersburg as to materially weaken him. But Grant was not to be changed from his purpose by such strategy: besides, he had placed Sheridan in command of all the Union cavalry in that part of the country, and had good reason to believe that he could depend upon Sheridan to do what occasion might require.

Early, according to directions, proceeded into the Shenandoah valley and marched thence with celerity by the way of Harper's Ferry into Pennsylvania as far as Chambersburg, which he burned-at the same time seizing and driving or carrying off large numbers of cattle and quantities of supplies. He even advanced to within six or seven miles of Washington; but, as he saw it would not be prudent to approach too near or to remain where he was, he suddenly turned around and returned the same way he had come into the Shenandoah valley. At Winchester he was met by Sheridan; and a battle took place at that point on September 19, 1864, in which the Confederates were badly defeated. Early, collecting what were left of his scattered forces, fell back to Fisher's Hill, eight miles south of Winchester, where he attempted to make a new stand. But Sheridan was not a man to hesitate or delay as long as he could strike; and, pushing after Early as rapidly as possible, he a few days subsequently struck him again at that place and defeated him even worse than before.