a very complete remodeling of the code of civil procedure and a more or less complete remodeling of the other codes.

One of the first questions encountered under the new constitution was as to the three readings of bills. The constitutional provisions on the point were that no bill should "become a law unless the same be read on three several days in each house, unless, in cases of urgency, two-thirds of the house where such bill may be pending, shall, by a vote of yeas and nays, dispense with this provision," and that "on the final passage of all bills they shall be read at length." It was argued on the one side that the well-settled meaning of the word "reading" in parliamentary law was a reading by title alone; that therefore a first and second reading by title would be sufficient; that such was evidently the intention of the constitution, not only because it was supposed to use parliamentary language but also because it specifically provided that the third reading must be "at length," and that, as every bill with its amendments had to be printed for the use of members before it could be put upon its passage, there could be no need of reading it three times at length. On the other hand, it was argued that the new constitution was supposed to use words in their common signification; that when it provided that a bill was to be "read," it meant to be read through; that the requirement that it should be "read at length' on final passage did not affect the meaning of the word "read" as used before, and that the intention of the new constitution. was that legislators should not lack knowledge of bills for want of reading. Though the first-mentioned arguments were most generally adopted, the last had adherents. To settle the matter, it was proposed to apply to the supreme court for its opinion; but, on further consideration, an act authorizing the transfer of three hundred and fifty dollars from the state general fund to the school fund, after being read the first and second times only by title, was passed by both houses and approved by the governor. The transfer of funds, thus provided for, being refused on the ground that the act had not been constitutionally passed, a case was made up for the supreme court and submitted to that tribunal. It decided promptly that the constitution required a 1 Stats. 1880, 1.

full reading at length on three several days, except in cases of urgency. Thereupon the bills that had been read only by title were read over at length on three several days; and such became the settled rule of construction in California. Notwithstanding the decision and construction thus settled, John F. Cowdery, speaker of the assembly, in his valedictory remarks at the end of the session, took occasion to say that much valuable time had been lost by enforcing the reading of bills three times at length; that at least on the first reading, though the bill had to be read, nobody listened and no court could compel anybody to listen; and he concluded with an observation that it was to be regretted that the opinion of the supreme court had ever been asked."

Several attempts were made to impose a chaplain upon the senate, but without success; while in the assembly, which perhaps had greater need, a chaplain was chosen. A resolution in the senate to amend the constitution in order to confer upon women the elective franchise was lost by the want of two votes. In the assembly a bill to enable women to vote upon all matters relating to the public schools was passed by a vote of forty-two to thirty-seven; but the next day there was a reconsideration, and the subject indefinitely postponed. A bill for a labor bureau, passed by the assembly, failed to pass the senate. A number of bills in the senate for the relief of John Hoagland and others, who had suffered injury to their farms along the Sacramento river in a season of flood, claimed to have been increased, if not entirely produced, by a change made by the state in the channel of the American river, were withdrawn after the first one had been indefinitely postponed. These claimants had been before the legislature for years and had been authorized to sue the state, but failed to recover judgment and then recommended their siege of the legislature for relief. It may be added that the siege was persistently kept up until 1885, 'Weill vs. Kenfield, 54 Cal. III.

Senate Journal, 1880, 17, 48, 75, 124, 130; Assembly Journal, 1880, 13, 24, 72, 167, 895.

Senate Journal, 1880, 8, 27, 28, 96, 155; Assembly Journal, 1880, 14, 15. Senate Journal, 1880, 247, 474; Assembly Journal, 1880, 604, 607.

5 Senate Journal, 1880, 781.

when they succeeded in procuring another act allowing them to sue the state and appropriating thirty-five thousand dollars to meet any judgment they might obtain, provided they would be satisfied with that amount and ask no more.' As to the acts passed in 1880, in addition to those remodeling the codes already adverted to, a number of other important ones may be mentioned. Among them were an act repealing the so-called "Rogers' act," authorizing San Francisco to provide new water works; several acts for the repeal of acts for the destruction of squirrels; an act for publication of the debates of the constitutional convention of 1878-9; an act regulating the state prisons; a new act for the relief of insolvents; an act establishing a mining bureau; an act to promote drainage; an act to establish free public libraries and reading-rooms; and an act to provide for the organization, incorporation and government of merged and consolidated cities and counties of more than one hundred thousand population. The last-mentioned act, intended for San Francisco and usually known as the "McClure charter," was an attempt, in as far as possible, to collate and re-enact the famous consolidation act of San Francisco and its numerous amendments, with only such changes as were made necessary by the new constitution; but soon after its passage it was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court; and since that time San Francisco, which has repeatedly refused to adopt a so-called freeholders' charter-such at least as have been submitted to ithas been obliged to find its governing law scattered in many volumes of the statutes, commencing in 1856.

3

Among the numerous anti-Chinese propositions presented at this session, though most were defeated, a few passed. They were chiefly: an act to promote emigration from the state; an act for the removal of Chinese, whose presence is dangerous to the well-being of communities, outside the limits of cities and towns; an act to prohibit the issuance of licenses to aliens, not eligible to become electors; amendments to the penal code, making the employment of Chinese by corporations or any of 'Senate Journal, 1880, 562; Stats. 1885, 107.

2 Stats. 1880, 1, 7, 17, 67, 82, 105, 115, 120, 123, 137, 221. 3 Desmond vs. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242.

their officers, agents or servants, a misdemeanor; and an act relating to fishing in the waters of the state.' As to the other numerous propositions-perhaps not much more unconstitutional than those above mentioned-was one to provide for the keeping of accounts in the English or some European language, which passed the assembly almost unanimously but failed in the senate; one to brand and banish Mongolian convicts, and one to make the secreting or storing human bones in places other than those authorized by law a misdemeanor-the intention being to prevent the Chinese from sending the bones of their dead back to China, as was their practice. It may be added that a numerously-signed memorial from citizens of Oakland and its neighborhood was presented to the senate against the passage of the generality of the anti-Chinese bills; while on the other hand the assembly granted the use of its chamber to O. C. Wheeler, a Baptist preacher, for the purposes of a lecture against Chinese immigration."

In the senate, towards the end of the session, Thomas Kane, in the course of remarks on the bill to promote drainage, announced that an attempt had been made to bribe him by an offer of five hundred dollars if he would vote for the bill, and five hundred dollars more if the bill passed. He was asked to name the person who had made the offer; but he refused to give it. The senate at once appointed a committee of investigation, which took Kane's testimony; but he still refused to divulge the name. The senate thereupon cited him before its bar and, on his continued refusal though he made an ample apology disclaiming any disrespect, committed him for contempt and sent him to the Sacramento county jail, where he remained about a week and until the end of the session. In the assembly Samuel Braunhart, after several times interrupting the speaker in putting a question and refusing to take his seat, was ordered under arrest. Being brought before the bar of the house, he again used disorderly language and was by vote suspended from the privilege of the floor for three days. Being still determined not

Stats. 1880, 15, 22, 39, 123; Amendments to Codes, 1880, 1, 2.

* Senate Journal, 1880, 168; Assembly Journal, 1880, 69, 70, 452, 526. Senate Journal, 1880, 634, 643, 676, 678.

to submit, he persisted in addressing the house, when it ordered the sergeant-at-arms to take and keep him in charge until his term of suspension should expire. He was, however, allowed to proceed, in charge of the sergeant-at-arms, to San Francisco for the purpose of suing out a writ of habeas corpus before the supreme court and thus testing the legality of his detention But before the supreme court could hear the case, the period of suspension and custody expired; and he was released and the writ discharged. A few days subsequently, Braunhart was again disposed to be disrespectful; but, soon afterwards recognizing his fault and making an ample apology, he was excused by unanimous vote; and pleasant relations were resumed.1 Meanwhile Dennis Kearney, who had been hanging around the desks of Workingmen assemblymen for the purpose of prompting them, had managed to make himself so offensive that on vote the floor was cleared. This angered Kearney to such a degree that, immediately after the adjournment for the day but on the floor of the house, he made an abusive, insulting and threatening attack upon assemblyman James Adams on account of his vote for the clearance. On the matter being brought to the attention of the assembly, a resolution was adopted excluding Kearney from its chamber, from all the galleries, lobbies, halls and antechambers thereto attached, from the rooms of the sergeant-atarms and from all committee rooms for the entire remainder of the session; and directions were given to see that the resolution was enforced not only during hours of actual session but during all hours and at all times."

But, notwithstanding some unpleasantnesses, the legislature of 1880 performed its great task well. It worked hard and it worked persistently. It may have made mistakes, and there may have been corrupt votes cast; but, taken all in all, its purposes were pure and its objects the conservation of law and the public welfare. Had a considerable majority of each house been elected by the same votes that adopted the new constitu tion, or had the same influences been predominant that in great part prevailed in the constitutional convention of 1878-9, the 1 Assembly Journal, 1880, 365, 367, 375, 405, 447.

2 Assembly Journal, 1880, 368, 406-408.