imprisonment in the state prison for not less than five nor more than twenty-five years. A month subsequently, Shaw again rose and, having apparently found that he had got his party into trouble, asked leave to withdraw his notice; whereupon Lansing B. Mizner, a Union man, gave notice of a similar bill and also of a resolution for an investigation of the recent election. He subsequently introduced his resolution, which after some modification was adopted by the senate; but the assembly refused its concurrence; and the whole subject, so far as that legislature was concerned, was indefinitely postponed. But, though the legislature thus refused to pursue the investigation, the charges of corruption and bribery, which were directed not against Casserly but against some of his friends acting without his knowledge or concurrence, continued to be talked about. The annoyance thereby occasioned, conjoined with rapidly failing health, caused Casserly in November, 1873, to resign his seat in the United States senate after a service of a little over four years; and thereupon the subject dropped.'

National politics, particularly in reference to the reconstruction of the southern states, as might have been expected, attracted a good deal of attention from the legislature of 1867-8. On December 14, 1867, only a few days after the commencement of the session, George Pearce introduced a resolution into the senate that the people of the United States owed it to themselves and to posterity to resist every attempt to count at the next presidential election the electoral vote of any state to be cast under or by virtue of the reconstruction acts of congress. Later in the session, he introduced another resolution expressing disapprobation of the refusal of congress to admit members elected to that body from the state of Kentucky, and also against the action of the United States senate in attempting to force exsecretary of war Stanton into the cabinet of President Johnson. These resolutions of Pearce, together with one by his political partner Shaw, against the action of congress in opposition to President Johnson-all of which seem to have been designed merely for the object of furnishing opportunities for political speeches were referred to the committee on federal relations, 1Senate Journal, 1867-8, 152, 158, 181, 239, 275, 351.

at whose suggestions they were all indefinitely postponed; and the country was quite as safe as if they had been adopted.'

Another series of resolutions of much the same character, but from the side of the Union party, was introduced into the senate on February 28, 1868, by E. H. Heacock. They declared the course of President Johnson in removing Edwin M. Stanton from the position of United States secretary of war to be in direct violation of the act of congress, known as the tenure of office act; pronounced such action a high misdemeanor and sufficient cause for impeachment, and directed the governor to telegraph a copy of them to the president of the senate and speaker of the house of representatives at Washington. These resolutions were, after a contest, adopted by a vote of seventeen to twelve and sent to the governor. A few days afterwards Haight replied with a lengthy message, declining to transmit the resolutions as directed and giving as his reason that the United States senate was sitting as a court of impeachment to try President Johnson upon charges preferred against him and “any attempt to forestall the judgment of that or any other judicial tribunal before the accused is heard in his defense would be indelicate and improper." Upon the reading of this message, Shaw moved that the governor's reasons for not transmitting the resolutions were satisfactory; and a vote was taken resulting in a tie of eighteen to eighteen, which was resolved in the affirmative by the casting vote of the lieutenantgovernor. But a motion to reconsider prevailed; and the next day a resolution was adopted by a decisive vote, accepting the reasons given for not transmitting the original resolutions to the president of the United States senate, but requiring the governor to transmit them immediately by telegraph to the speaker of the house of representatives."

In the assembly political resolutions were quite as plentiful and quite as exaggerated and violent as in the senate. On December 16, 1867, John M. James introduced one to the effect that the ten southern states were governed by the military and ought to be at once restored to the same equal constitutional rights enjoyed by all the other states. On February 20, 1868, John H. Moore 1Senate Journal, 1867–8, 143, 239, 676.

2 Senate Journal, 1867-8, 461-464, 506–510.

introduced another to the effect that measures were pending before congress for the declared purpose of extinguishing ten states of the Union and establishing in their stead a military dictatorship; that it was intended to complete the scheme of usurpation by the degradation and subjection of the federal judiciary to the arbitrary will of a congressional majority, and that the legislative representatives of California, reflecting the will of the people, pronounced "these acts of usurpation treasonable, flagitious and a crime against the institutions of our fathers." Both these resolutions went to the committee on federal relations, which in the assembly as in the senate was equivalent to giving them their quietus. But on February 25, Asa Ellis introduced into the assembly a fiery manifesto, which was adopted by that body by a vote of thirty-two to eighteen, to the effect that the radical majority in congress were "treasonably attempting to usurp the constitutional functions of the executive and judicial departments of the federal government" and to that end were "endeavoring, in defiance of the laws and traditions of our country, by violence, to remove from office the president of the United States," and therefore recommending him to be firm and unbending in the maintenance of the rights of the executive department and pledging him for that object the undivided support of the people of California. Even this seems to have been not sufficiently virulent for Ellis; and he added another clause to his resolution to the effect that the radical majority in congress had "trampled upon and disregarded the great interests of the people" and, instead of legislating to relieve them of the burdens of taxation under which the entire industry of the country was suffering, were "bending their united efforts to involve the country in the vortex of civil war" and had "proved themselves unworthy alike of the high positions they now occupy and of the confidence of the people." In addition to the adoption of Ellis' resolution and in further exposition of its political position, the assembly refused to adopt and in fact rejected the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.1

The principal legislation of the session consisted of the repeal of an act to exclude traitors and alien enemies from the courts of

1

1 Assembly Journal, 1867-8, 155, 517, 533-535, 601, 758.

justice in civil cases; the repeal of an act respecting fugitives from labor and slaves brought to this state prior to its admission into the Union; an act to limit the hours of labor to eight hours -the original in California of a line of legislation in reference to labor; an act to authorize the supervisors of San Francisco to modify the grade of Second and other streets or, in other words, to cut through and in effect ruin Rincon Hill as a place of residence without benefiting it as a place of business; an act to confirm "order eight hundred" of the board of supervisors of San Francisco for the settlement and quieting of the title of the outside lands of the pueblo; an act to survey and dispose of the salt marsh and tide lands belonging to the state within the city and county of San Francisco; an act for the codification of the laws of the state-the first of a series which ended in the adoption of the compilations known as the Californian codes; and, most important of all perhaps, an act to create and organize the University of California.'

Stats. 1867-8, 8, 13, 63, 248, 379, 435, 595, 716.

THE

CHAPTER IV.

HAIGHT (CONTINUED).

HE legislature of 1869-70 met on December 6, 1869, in the new capitol at Sacramento, which had just been completed sufficiently for occupancy. This structure, built chiefly of white Californian granite and resembling in many respects the national capitol at Washington, was and is one of the handsomest edifices in the United States. Its length is two hundred and eighty-two feet; its width about half as much and its height to the top of the dome two hundred and twenty-three feet and to the top of the surmounting golden ball two hundred and forty feet. The corner-stone had been laid in May, 1861, so that it had been nine years under coustruction and had cost up to that time about a million of dollars. It contained two magnificent chambers-that of the senate being seventy-three by fifty-six feet, that of the assembly seventy-three by seventy-five, each forty-eight feet high, and each having a spacious gallery supported by massive Corinthian columns and being otherwise tastefully ornamented with pilasters and entablatures, which, however, unfortunately interfered with the acoustic qualities of the place. It also contained a chamber for the supreme court, rooms for the state library, offices for the governor and other state officials, and in the center, under the dome, an impressive rotunda, fifty-three and a half feet in diameter, lifting itself one hundred and twenty-five feet from the ground floor and decorated in all the grace and beauty of harmonious colors. The occupation of the building, though not completed, was celebrated by a grand ball, which was held in the senate and assembly chambers on the evening of Wednesday, December 15, 1869, and constituted the first of a series. of similar social events given in the capitol, usually in celebration of the inauguration of a new governor. It required several years