1863. The error was at once corrected; but only a few days subsequently the senate sent back one of his own messages for the correction of an error-thus squaring the account.'

On December 20 a bill had been introduced into the senate for the repeal of the specific contract law. It had occasioned much disagreement and discussion and finally on February 16, after many postponements, it had been defeated by striking out the enacting clause by a vote of eighteen to ten. A day or two afterwards a San Francisco newspaper, called the American Flag, owned and edited by Daniel O. McCarthy, came out in a violent article, charging that the defeat of the repeal bill had cost bankers and others about one hundred and eight thousand dollars, of which seven senators received eighty-four thousand dollars or twelve thousand dollars each, and the balance was expended in paying lobbyists and corruptionists. On February 10, a resolution was adopted referring to these charges and appointing six of the senators, who had been in favor of the bill, a committee to investigate the charges and ascertain whether there had been bribery and corruption on the part of the seven senators or any of them or only willful and malicious public slander on the part of McCarthy. On the next day McCarthy, who had been sent for, was called before the bar of the senate. Being asked a few preliminary questions, he answered that he was editor and proprietor of the newspaper; that he was responsible for articles that appeared in it, and that he had dictated and approved the article complained of. But by that time, finding that the investigation was likely to become too hot for him and on a pretense that an open examination would enable the guilty ones to escape, he refused to answer any more questions. When asked whether he knew of any corruption on the part of any senator or of any fact tending to show corruption, he declined to answer. When asked the name of any senator he had referred to as among those he had charged with corruption, he declined to answer. When asked the name of any person from whom he had derived any information on the subject of his charges, he in like manner declined to answer.

1 Senate Journal, 1865-6, 227, 238, 264, 448; Assembly Journal, 1865–6, 319, 522.

2 Senate Journal, 1865–6, 108, 204, 303.

Under the circumstances it seemed plain that McCarthy was guilty of contempt in refusing to answer and doubtless of falsehood in making his charges. A resolution finding him guilty of contempt and ordering his arrest and commitment to and confinement in the Sacramento county jail, until he should purge himself by answering the questions propounded, was adopted on February 21; and thereupon he was taken into custody and thrust into prison.' On March 7 a resolution was adopted that he should be discharged if he would disclose under oath to the committee of investigation the names of the witnesses by whom he had expected to prove his charges, the names of senators supposed to have received bribes or any other matter or fact that would enable the committee to intelligently investigate the alleged corruption; but McCarthy now declined to give any information until he should be released from custody. That no possible obstacle or pretense might stand in the way and that McCarthy might have no further subterfuge, the senate on March 19 discharged him from custody. But, as was perhaps to have been expected, he still refused to give any information for the reason undoubtedly that he had never had any; and subsequently, on March 30, the senate closed the business by adopting a resolution, reciting the facts and declaring that McCarthy's article was "wantonly and maliciously false, defamatory and libelous both to the senate and the people of the state represented therein." 2

An extensive move in the name of charity upon the state treasury was made at this session of the legislature. A private association, known as the Sisters of Charity of Los Angeles, started the project by a petition, presented in the senate, for a donation to an orphan asylum under its charge; and this was followed by a flood of petitions from similar institutions in different parts of the country. The finance committee, to which all were referred, held them till within a day or two of the end of the session and then, by reporting them back without recommendation, did an effective piece of legislative economy. A bill to allow Mongolians, Chinese and Indians to testify in any action

'Senate Journal, 1865-6, 321-344.

2 Senate Journal, 1865-6, 400, 500, 661.

26 VOL. IV.

or proceeding, introduced in the senate on December 18, 1865, was held up in the judiciary committee till near the end of the session and killed in much the same manner. An attempt was made to pass an eight-hour labor law; but there were several opposing remonstrances, purporting to be by mechanics; and it failed. On the other hand several very important laws passedone a registry law; another an act, known as the Porter law, for the protection of primary elections and the prevention of fraud against them; another a law supplementing an act of 1863 and rendering feasible the widening of Kearny street in San Francisco, and another a law for a paid fire department in San Francisco. While the registry law and the Porter law tended to purify elections throughout the state, the Kearny street act made a beautiful and popular thoroughfare out of a narrow and inconvenient one; and the act last named made a complete change, and for the better in many respects, in the fire department of the metropolis. It is difficult to estimate the public benefit of these acts. An act was also passed authorizing county courts to change names—and few or no special bills for that purpose thenceforth took up the time and attention of the legislature.1

At this legislature also, an attempt was made to change the name of Mount Diablo, or Monte del Diablo as called in Spanish, to Kahwookum, which was said to have been the original Indian name. A petition to that effect, presented in the senate by Henry L. Dodge of San Francisco, was referred to the committee on public morals. Charles B. Porter of Contra Costa county for that committee, on the last day of the session, reported that the legislature had no authority to change the name of a conspicuous landmark, which ran through the records of the United States land department, the charts of navigators and the transactions of scientific societies throughout the world; and, further, that the committee found nothing in the name of Mount Diablo that need be construed offensively. And that was the last of the proposition."

'Senate Journal, 1865-6, 103, 161, 392, 512, 724, 735, 736; Assembly Journal, 1865–6, 292, 456; Stats. 1865–6, 27, 138, 288, 538.

2 Senate Journal, 1865-6, 172, 716, 717.

Not long after the adjournment of the legislature on April 2, 1866, parties, and particularly the Union party, began to talk about the elections which were to take place in the autumn of 1867. Notwithstanding the trouble Conness had caused in endeavoring to force the election of Low as United States senator and notwithstanding his failure and the unpopularity which he had incurred on account of his apparent determination to run things to suit his own purposes, even at the risk of dividing and destroying the Union party, he still assumed control of Union politics; and, by his very great skill in manipulating the shorthairs as against the long-hairs, he managed to secure the nominations of the Union state convention, which met at Sacramento on June 12, 1867. Among the candidates supported by him, and whom he succeeded in having nominated, were George C. Gorham for governor, William H. Parks for secretary of state, Josiah Howell for controller and Daniel O. McCarthy for state printer.

The fruit of Conness' management soon appeared. The independent press, including the most influential newspapers in the state, hitherto strong for the Union candidates, denounced Conness' political trickery, charged him with fraud and demanded the withdrawal of Gorham, Parks, Howell and McCarthy as nominations inflicted on the Union party and utterly unfit to be made. As, however, no effort was manifested and no thought entertained by Conness of revising or pruning his ticket, a movement was started by various portions of the long-hair element to get up a new ticket; and the result was the revival or re-initiation of the Republican party. This new party, afterwards powerful in the state, hastily arranged a state convention, which met at Sacramento on July 16 and nominated first John Bidwell, who declined, and then Caleb T. Fay for governor, and John G. McCallum, William Jones and Edward G. Jefferis in place of Parks, Howell and McCarthy. The Democratic state convention met at San Francisco on June 19 and nominated Henry H. Haight for governor, William Holden for lieutenant-governor, H. L. Nichols for secretary of state, Robert Watt for controller, Daniel W. Gelwicks for state printer and so on, naming a full state ticket.

On September 4, the election took place, and the Union party met with its first defeat since the breaking out of the war. The campaign was prosecuted on each side with animation and in some respects with bitterness. The independent press kept up a constant fire on Gorham and his ostracized associates; and the general desire seemed to be not so much to elect the Democrats as to defeat Conness. The result of the ballot was the election of Haight by nearly fifty thousand votes as against a little over forty thousand for Gorham and two thousand for Fay. Nichols obtained a majority of about seven thousand over Parks; Watt about the same over Howell and Gelwicks about ten thousand over McCarthy, while Jefferis received about four and a half thousand. Two Democrats, Samuel B. Axtell and James A. Johnson, and one Union man, William Higby, were elected representatives in congress, A majority of Democrats were also elected to the legislature; and at the judicial election, which took place on October 16, the Democrat Royal T. Sprague was elected justice of the supreme court by nearly four thousand votes over John Currey, and the Democrat O. P. Fitzgerald superintendent of public instruction by about fifteen hundred over John Swett.'

The legislature of 1867-8 met at Sacramento on December 2, 1867; and on December 4 Low presented his last message. Notwithstanding the defeat of his party, and perhaps to some extent on account of it, he spoke out boldly and in many respects well in regard to public affairs. He said that the financial condition of the state was highly satisfactory and the speedy liquidation of the public debt assured, if prudence and economy were practiced. The total debt at that time was over five millions; but the resources, applicable to payment of interest and creation of sinking funds, would wipe it off within ten years. He next turned to the illiberal and barbarous provisions of the law excluding Mongolian and Indian testimony from courts of justice in cases where a white person was a party; and he took strong ground against them. It required considerable courage to do so for the reason that there was very great prejudice in the public mind against Mongolians, and the Chinese question had been 'Davis' Political Conventions, 243–265; Senate Journal, 1867–8, 92.