Cornelius Cole, whose office was to expire on March 3, 1873. According to the law of congress of July 25, 1866,' each house of the legislature was to hold an election for Cole's successor on the second Tuesday after the organization of the legislature. On Tuesday, December 19, 1871, accordingly, the houses respectively held their elections. Previous to this time, as may well be imagined, there had been controversies, contests and caucuses in both parties on behalf of the respective candidates for the office which had always been looked upon as the most important in the gift of the state; but they had all settled down upon Aaron A. Sargent of Nevada county on the part of the Republicans and William T. Wallace of Santa Clara county on the part of the Democrats. The vote in the senate was twenty-one for Wallace and eighteen for Sargent; in the assembly, fifty-four for Sargent and twenty-four for Wallace. There being no election of the same person by both houses, they met, according to the provisions of the act, in joint convention at noon the next day, when Sargent was elected by seventy-two votes over forty-six for Wallace.2

On January 27, 1872, the Republican assembly adopted two joint resolutions for the ratification of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States. There was no necessity for this action, as the amendments had been adopted by a sufficient number of states without California and were already an integral part of the constitution. But it was thought proper that California, which had previously in Haight's time rejected them, should now withdraw from the position then taken and join in their ratification. The resolutions were accordingly transmitted to the senate. That body, however, did not manifest any favor to the provisions against which the Democracy as a party had always declaimed. It referred them to its committee on federal relations, composed of three Democrats and two Republicans; and that committee held them without a report until the end of the session. In reference to another measure of the Republican assembly, being a bill for the repeal of the "litiU. S. Stats. 1866, 243.

2 Senate Journal, 1871–2, 139–151.

Senate Journal, 1871-2, 282, 283, 747.

gant organ act," referred to by Booth in his inaugural and which was in fact designed for the benefit of a Democratic newspaper in Sacramento, the senate acted differently. On the first vote it rejected the repeal act, but afterwards on reconsideration passed it by a vote of twenty-four to fourteen; and a few days afterwards it was approved by the governor. Another act—also passed at the previous session of the legislature, of much the same nature and nearly as objectionable, called "an act to protect litigants,' but which referred only to the publication of legal notices in counties'-was also in much the same manner repealed, though some of the Democratic senators, as in the other case, made strenuous efforts to retain it on the statute-book. The Mercantile Library lottery act, another vicious legacy of the session of 1869-70, though it had already accomplished its harm, was likewise repealed."

The next matter of special interest in the legislature was the reception of the Japanese embassy. This consisted of Iwakura, junior prime minister, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Japan, and four or five other Japanese officials of high rank, accredited by their government to the so-called treaty powers, who were on their way to Washington. Their object was to negotiate on the subject of commercial relations; and it was deemed of the highest importance to treat them with distinguished consideration. Their company, including secretaries and attendants, numbered forty-four persons. They were accompanied by Charles E. De Long of California, the United States minister to Japan. On February 1, 1872, upon the announcement of their presence, the senate postponed other business; invited them to seats within its bar, and listened to an address by De Long, who had been asked to speak upon the subject of his mission. Upon their withdrawal, a resolution offered by Edward Tompkins was unanimously adopted, welcoming the minister and the embassy and expressing a hope that their coming might be the harbinger of a commercial intercourse that would add largely to the prosperity and happiness of the people of both countries."

Stats. 1869-70, 435.

'Senate Journal, 1871-2, 168, 210, 337, 338, 931. Senate Journal, 1871–2, 285.

They next visited the assembly and were received with equal respect.' But there was a sequel to the visit. A few days afterwards, Charles Maclay of Santa Clara introduced into the senate a concurrent resolution in reference to the payment of the expenses of the joint committee of the two houses which had been appointed to invite the embassy to the capital, of which he had been chairman. In reply to this, Henry Larkin of El Dorado demanded a bill of items of the expenses incurred. Maclay submitted an account, which proved to be a bill of the Orleans Hotel against the Japanese embassy for two thousand dollars, of which six hundred dollars were for De Long, his family and attendants; two hundred and fifty dollars for carriages; three hundred dollars for wine, eight hundred dollars for a banquet and fifty dollars for cigars. The matter being referred to the committee on contingent expenses, it reported that there was nothing in the resolution of invitation authorizing the joint committee to incur any expense, and that the bill presented was a hotel bill, not charged against the committee and not for any expenses connected with the reception of the embassy. But the senate as a whole, taking a different view of the subject, ordered the bill paid; and the assembly concurred.'

It was at this session of 1871-2 that the various codes or compilations of the statute law of California, which had been prepared in part by a commission appointed in 1868 and in part by another appointed in 1870 and revised by still another commission appointed in 1871, were received and adopted. They were divided into four parts and introduced as separate acts-first the penal code on February 5; next the code of civil procedure on March 6; the political code on March 8, and the civil code on March 15, 1872. In accordance with provisions inserted in the codes themselves, they were not to take effect until January 1, 1873; but, on account of an opinion on the part of the legislature that certain portions should be put in operation before that time, separate acts were framed for that purpose. These codes in general consisted of compilations of the statutes then in force, 1Assembly Journal, 1871–2, 356-358.

2 Senate Journal, 1871-2, 307, 309, 330, 376.
3 Hittell's Codes and Statutes, 15046-15101.

with amendments and improvements in arrangement. This was notably the case with the penal code, the code of civil procedure, and the political code. Among the improvements was a quiet one, allowing Indians and Chinese to testify in the courts the same as whites and blacks. The civil code, on the other hand, with the exception of the parts taken in substance from the statutes of California, was a copy of the draft of a civil code, prepared by a commission, at the head of which was David Dudley Field, for the state of New York but never adopted by that state. Taken altogether, they were an improvement on the statute law as it existed; but in many respects they have had to be, and will yet have to be, greatly amended before they can be called excellent.

An unusual complication of circumstances was brought to the attention of the senate on February 16, 1872. On June 30, 1864, congress had granted the Yosemite valley to the state of California to be held by it for all time in inalienable trust for public use, resort and recreation. The grant was on condition that it should be accepted on the terms mentioned. This acceptance afterwards in 1866 took place; and a commission was appointed, consisting of the governor ex-officio and other persons, to administer the trust. Some six months prior to the passage of the act of congress but while the matter was pending, James M. Hutchings, A. G. Black and J. C. Lamon went into the valley, settled on the choicest portion of it and claimed pre-emption rights to one hundred and sixty acres each. Hutchings appears to have purchased, though he could not have given much money for, the dwelling house or rather shanty of some previous settler, and, with his family, took up his residence there and entertained visitors to the valley. The others seem to have built their own shanties and also entertained. As a matter of law, they acquired no valid rights by their settlement; and Hutchings and Lamon seem to have recognized this fact by applying to the legislature of 1867-8 for an act granting them the lands settled on. A bill for that purpose, which however was not by its terms to take effect until it should be ratified by congress, was introduced into the assembly and passed both houses. It was vetoed by Stats. 1865-6, 710.

Governor Haight, and then regularly passed by both houses over his veto. But, though thus passed, for some reason or other, the act was never properly authenticated or published and did not appear in the statute-book. No notice was taken of the matter at the next session of the legislature; but at the session of 1871-2 an investigation was ordered, which took place and showed that the act, though on file in the office of the secretary of state, did not have the proper certificates of its passage over the governor's veto. So far as the act itself was concerned, it perhaps made little difference, as congress had not ratified it and doubtless never would ratify it; but the circumstances indicated a loose and careless, if not worse, method of doing legislative business, which might in some cases have occasioned great trouble.

Meanwhile, the Yosemite commissioners had soon after their appointment in 1866 commenced an action against Hutchings and the others to eject them from the valley. The Hutchings case was tried in the district court in Mariposa county and resulted in favor of defendant. An appeal being taken by plaintiffs, the supreme court of the state reversed the judgment and ordered the court below to enter judgment just the other way, ejecting defendant. From this last judgment, Hutchings sued out a writ of error to the supreme court of the United States and about the same time, in connection with Black and Lamon, applied to the legislature of 1871-2 for payment of what he called their equitable claims. A bill to that effect passed the assembly; but in the senate the committee on finance, to whom it had been referred, reported against it for the reasons, among others, that so far at least as Hutchings was concerned it was useless because he had demanded over sixty thousand dollars for his individual claim and refused to take less, and because the writ of error, under which he persisted in his claim to the land, was still pending; and, if he won and got the land, he could certainly not ask any relief from the state. It therefore recommended rejection of the bill; and the recommendation was adopted. And thus for the time the matter ended. But Hutch'Low vs. Hutchings, 41 Cal. 634.

* Senate Journal, 1871-2, 356, 371, 471, 486, 506.