and he was charged with making use of his position as governor to mount to the position of United States senator. Under the circumstances, he felt obliged to withdraw from the senatorial contest, which he accordingly did on August 2 by a card published in the newspapers.1

The Union state convention met at Sacramento on August 16, 1865. There was very little for it to do, as the only office to be filled was that of justice of the supreme court. Delegates of both factions were present; several contests took place, and much bitterness of feeling was manifested. But in the naming of a candidate nearly all united in the re-nomination of Silas W. Sanderson, who had filled the office with general satisfaction since the beginning of 1864. Among the resolutions of this convention was one recognizing Andrew Johnson as a worthy successor of Lincoln, another recommending an amendment to the federal constitution prohibiting slavery, and another in favor of the Monroe doctrine and against the attempted subversion of liberty in the neighboring republic of Mexico by the establishment over it with foreign arms of imperial power. At the same time, the convention voted down by a very large and decisive majority a proposition to adopt greenbacks as the state currency and repeal the gold coin or specific contract law. The Democratic state convention met at Sacramento on September 19 and nominated Henry H. Hartley for justice of the supreme court. The chief feature of its resolutions was opposition to negro suffrage and to the political or social equality in any form of the negro with the white man. It also indorsed the Monroe doctrine and the specific contract law. On October 18 the judicial election took place; and Sanderson was elected by a vote of over thirty-four thousand against less than twenty-eight thousand for Hartley.'

Notwithstanding the efforts of Conness by means of the shorthair faction to continue in control of the state, his opponents, when the issue was once made, gave him an unequivocal defeat. At the general election for members of the legislature held on September 6, 1865, the long-hairs obtained a decided majority; 'Davis' Political Conventions, 214-219.

2 Davis' Political Conventions, 220-226.

and from that moment what was usually known, by analogy with mining speculations, as "Conness stock" began to decline. On December 4, the legislature of 1865–6 met, and as soon as the two houses were organized Governor Low sent in his first biennial message. He reported a great reduction of the ordinary public debt and good prospects of further reductions in the near future. But the exigencies of the recent war had required a large volunteer force; and an extraordinary expense had to be incurred in the way of bounties and extra pay at the rate of five dollars per month per man during service. A portion of this expense had been provided for by the issue of state bonds to the amount of six hundred thousand dollars under an act for the relief of the California volunteers passed April 27, 1863; but there still remained claims exceeding two hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars, which were just and should be honored. He called attention to the slow progress of the capitol building, to the great increase of insane patients at Stockton as "limited only by the capacity of the asylum," and to an improvement in the affairs of the state prison. The number of prisoners on October 31, 1865, was six hundred and forty-eight, ninety-seven more than on December 15, 1863; but this increase, he said, was not owing to an increase of crime but to the fact that there had been few or no escapes, as was common before. Since the latter date only one had got away; whereas, previous to that time since January, 1854, there had been an average loss of over thirty-five per year. Another cause was the fact that he had granted only twenty-two pardons or at the rate of eleven each year, whereas during the preceding ten years the average was twenty-five per year.1

After a general review of the condition of various other institutions and of economical affairs in the state, Low presented the resolution of congress, submitting to the legislatures of the several states the proposed new thirteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, abolishing slavery. He recommended its hearty and prompt adoption "in order that no question may arise in the future to perplex the people or again deluge the land with blood." He then proceeded to discuss federal relations and 1 Senate Journal, 1865-6, 5-38.

said that the great national question engaging attention was the status of the rebellious states and how they were to be reconstructed. There were many different theories and many different plans proposed; but among them all he was disposed to believe that the president of the United States would find the right course, as he seemed "to be desirous of arriving at practical results without paying deference to abstruse theories." In conclusion, Low suggested, if it were true as reported that the rebellious states were determined to oppose the efforts of the government at reconstruction, that the vote should be given to the enfranchised negroes of the south, and that a further amendment to the constitution of the United States should secure them in that franchise.'

On December 16, 1865, the houses met in joint convention for the election of a United States senator for a term of six years from March 4, 1867, in place of James A. McDougall. The Union caucus, on account of the difficulty of agreeing upon a more prominent candidate, had nominated Cornelius Cole; and he was accordingly elected by a vote of ninety-two as against twenty-six complimentary votes thrown for William T. Coleman." A few days afterwards the governor approved a joint resolution ratifying the thirteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, which had passed both houses by large majorities.3 It was about this time that the true character of Andrew Johnson, the president of the United States, began to manifest itself and the struggle commenced between him and congress, which led to his impeachment. It soon became evident that the Union party, misled by Johnson's professions, had committed a very great mistake in making him vice-president of the United States. Possibly, if he had remained in that position, no fault would have been found. But when he took the reins in his own hands as president, almost everything he did was in opposition to the party which had placed him in power; and hardly anything could have been more satisfactory to those who had opposed the war and who still opposed such reconstruction as would

'Senate Journal, 1865–6, 40–57.

2 Senate Journal, 1865-6, 94-96.

3 Stats. 1865-6, 896; Assembly Journal, 1865-6, 149.

secure the fruits of the war, or in other words the Democratic party.

Very soon after the meeting of the legislature, resolutions began to come in from the Democratic members indorsing Johnson's actions. Among these were resolutions by George Pearce, William J. Shaw and John S. Hager in the senate and William Holden, Jesse D. Goodwin and Samuel L. Lupton in the assembly. On January 5, 1866, James Johnson moved in the senate "That the so-called confederate states are not out of the Union." Joseph Kutz moved to amend by adding the clause “but are emphatically out in the cold." Horace Hawes offered a substitute, which seemed to express the sentiment of the Union party, as follows: "That the pretended right of secession on the part of any state, or the people thereof, is repugnant to the federal constitution and subversive of the peace, order and liberties of the country; and we rejoice that reason and the force of arms have forever overthrown the doctrine of the said pretended right of secession and re-established the authority of the constitution and government of the United States, in all their plenitude, over the whole territories of the American Union." This substitute was adopted by eight ayes to three noes in the senate. It then went to the assembly where it was adopted, with a short amendment, by forty-seven ayes to seven noes. Upon returning to the senate, it was not again called up for the reason doubtless that a new set of resolutions on the condition of national affairs had been offered by John P. Jones and were, after some amendments, finally adopted.1

The new resolutions declared that the rebellious states should not be represented in congress, nor permitted the full exercise of civil power within their own limits, nor resume their position as states of the Union in full fellowship, until adequate guarantees of security for the future should be incorporated in the United States constitution and so indorsed or adopted by the people of those states as to be made practically irreversible; that all questions relating to the status of rebellious states, their relations to the Union and the time and method of their restoration thereto,

1 Senate Journal, 1865–6, 126, 127, 530-536; Assembly Journal, 1865-6, 772, 773; Davis' Political Conventions, 226–235.

belonged to the legislative and not to the executive department of the federal government; that the adoption of the amendment to the constitution of the United States abolishing slavery, including a proper basis of representation of the people of the south by putting them on an equality with the people of the north, should be a condition precedent to the full restoration of the rebellious states; that full confidence was had in the wisdom, integrity and moderation of congress; that the freedmen's bureau bill recently passed was a well-considered and constitutional measure, and that the president's veto of it and his implied intention to veto all measures affecting the rebellious states, unless their representatives were first admitted to vote for or against such measures, were "totally indefensible and an assumption of dictatorial power justly calculated to awaken the greatest apprehensions in the minds of a people jealous of their liberties."

991

Governor Low was about as unfortunate with his vetoes this session as last. He vetoed bills to change the name of the Pacific Accumulation Loan Company; to allow Charles C. Beard, an infant, to make a contract; to amend the law concerning official bonds; to aid the Placerville and Sacramento Valley and Western Pacific railroads; to fix freights and fares, and to settle land claims in San Francisco. His reason for vetoing the bill concerning official bonds was that it would tend to destroy their validity; for vetoing the railroad aid bill, that economy forbade it; for vetoing the freight and fare bill, that it would create a contract that could not afterwards be repealed or impaired, and for vetoing the San Francisco bill, that it would give certain commissioners, provided in it for disposing of public lands, too much power and authority. All these were sustained. On the other hand his vetoes of an act in relation of supervisor and revenue districts in Placer county; an act in relation to supervisor and revenue districts in Plumas county, and an act for the relief of B. W. Bours and others, sureties on an official bond, were overruled by large majorities. One of his vetoes was of an amendment proposed in the senate to a judiciary "act of April 29, 1863," on the ground that there was no such act of April 29, 1 Stats. 1865-6, 909.

2 Senate Journal, 1865-6, 360, 403, 734; Assembly Journal, 1865-6, 293, 789, 853.