result might have been different. Fortunately the conservative element preponderated; and the main purpose of the majorities in each house was to stay the tide of encroachment and preserve existing institutions as far as could be done under existing circumstances. The dominant party had as a general rule opposed the new constitution; but, after its adoption, they recognized it with all its provisions as the supreme law of the land. They, however, insisted that it was to be interpreted as essentially a conservative instrument; and they managed to make good their conservative claims with conservative votes. Their peculiar position, in contradistinction to that of their antagonists, grew out of the fact that there were two ways of construing the instrument-one, according to its strict letter, and the other, according to what might be supposed to be its spirit. Under the first method, by restricting and confining legislation within the strict letter of the instrument, the most serious attacks upon capital and corporations could be thwarted or rendered comparatively innocuous; while under the other method almost every institution and enterprise, founded upon capital, might have been endangered. On this account the conservatives became very strict constructionists and in this way advocates of the new constitution; while their opponents were disposed to read between the lines and therefore did not, so generally as might have been expected, invoke its exact language.

The main objects of the legislature of 1880, however, in addition to providing for the carrying on of the government, were the amendment of the codes and putting in operation the new system; and in accomplishing these purposes there was in most respects great unanimity and good feeling on all sides. Almost everything that the new constitution required and all that was indispensably necessary to fit the new order of things was done. The very magnitude of these objects, and the necessity felt in every quarter of getting through with them in the short time. allowed, not only demanded, but in a great measure secured, unanimity. There were, it is true, some matters and particularly in reference to revenue, county government and elections that occasioned severe and bitter contests; but in general all code amendments, after being reported from the appropriate com

mittees, passed without much opposition. Hardly anything in the way of important legislation could have been smoother than the manner in which most of the code amendments were adopted. On the other hand, in the management and discussion of matters of contention, though there were occasional exhibitions of sectional prejudice and sometimes of political or individual passion, there was nothing very serious of either kind. The talk was in some cases acrimonious; but no one was very angry. In fact the real feelings of the members towards one another were exceptionally kindly; and, when they came to part at the end of the session, they parted in good humor. The arrows that had been thrown were not envenomed. They caused no rankling wounds or festering sores. Considering the heterogeneous composition of the two houses and the circumstances under which they were brought together and under which they acted when brought together, and especially in view of their great labor and the important work they did-second only to that of the first legislature under the first constitution-great praise is due to them.'

In San Francisco, as has been already stated, the Workingmen's party had greater swing than in the state at large and, though restrained from open violence by a healthy fear of the "pick-handle brigade," they nevertheless continued to be loud. In June, 1879, soon after nominating their state ticket, they nominated a city and county ticket, with Rev. Isaac S. Kalloch, a Baptist preacher, at the head of it for the office of mayor. During the campaign the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper attacked Kalloch as an improper person and published some damaging statements against him. Kalloch answered from his pulpit by attacking the mother of Charles and Michael H. De Young, the proprietors of the newspaper. Charles De Young, resenting this dastardly attack, on August 26, 1879, drove to Kalloch's study in Metropolitan Temple on Fifth street and, calling him out, shot and seriously wounded him. The assault created a great deal of excitement, which was skillfully taken advantage of by the Workingmen; and Kalloch was elected mayor by a large majority and duly inducted into office. The

newspaper, however, continued to assail him and having at last got hold of and published something more than ordinarily damaging to the mayor's good name and reputation, Rev. Isaac M. Kalloch, the mayor's son and also a Baptist preacher, on April 23, 1880, proceeded to the Chronicle office; surprised Charles De Young in an unguarded moment, and shot him to death. De Young was to have been tried for his assault with a deadly weapon; but his death put an end to the proceedings. Young Kalloch was afterwards prosecuted for murder, but was acquitted by the jury impaneled to try him.

Almost immediately after the adjournment of the legislature of 1880, which took place on April 16, the different parties commenced preparing for the national conventions for nomination of president and vice-president of the United States and choosing their delegates. The Democrats favored Allen G. Thurman for president; and a majority of the Workingmen seemed to have the same preference. The Republicans on the other hand were strongly in favor of James G. Blaine for president and instructed their delegates "to vote as a unit-first, last and all the time" for him. When the nominations came to be made, however, Winfield S. Hancock was named for president and Thomas D. English for vice-president by the Democrats at Cincinnati; and James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur for the same offices by the Republicans at Chicago. Though these candidates were not first choice of the Californian parties, they were accepted; and soon afterwards six electors were nominated by each of the political parties, including a so-called National Greenback Labor party and a Prohibition party. Congressmen and assemblymen were also nominated in the different districts. The election was held on November 2, 1880, and resulted in the choice of the Democratic electors by an average vote of about eighty thousand four hundred and twenty-eight votes as against an average of eighty thousand two hundred and forty-six for the Republicans-with the exception that David S. Terry, Democrat, was defeated, for the want of nearly five hundred votes, by Henry Edgerton, Republican. The Greenback Labor party polled an average of three thousand three hundred and seventy; and the Prohibition an average of fifty-five. Of the candidates

42 VOL. IV.

for congress, William S. Rosecrans and Campbell P. Berry, Democrats, and Horace F. Page and Romualdo Pacheco, Republicans, were elected. The new assembly had a majority of Republicans.

As the new constitution required the legislature to meet again in 1881, that body convened, in accordance with its provisions, at Sacramento on January 3. Perkins presented his first regular message the same day. He said that the year just past had been propitious and the condition of the state on the whole prosperous. As one evidence of this, he stated that the assessed value of property had been increased more than one hundred and eighteen and a half millions of dollars; but at the same time he added that the taxation, occasioned by the new constitution, had also been increased. He next adverted to the fact that the power of the state board of equalization had been neutralized by a decision of the supreme court; and he went on to suggest that a new constitutional amendment of the new constitution was a necessity. He then touched on the public schools and said that, while in 1849 the first public school had opened at San Francisco with only three pupils, the attendance had grown in thirty-one years to over a hundred thousand, and the value of public school property increased from nothing to some seven millions of dollars; but he added that over fifty thousand children in the state had not attended any school, and in this respect the condition of affairs was not satisfactory. He also adverted to the reforms in the judiciary department, but pointed out that costs in judicial proceedings, and particularly in cases of attachments, foreclosures and settlement of estates in probate, were excessive; and he recommended radical changes. He called attention to the fact that the county government act, passed at the last session, had been declared unconstitutional and spoke of the need of new legislation for county, as also for city and town, government. There was a necessity, he thought, for something to be done in favor of immigration, for the reason that for five years it had substantially stopped-in part at least on account of the turbulent agitation about Chinese and labor troubles. He therefore recommended that publications should be made under authority of the state of its resources, prices and locations with the object

of attracting desirable new population. He expressed himself against the doctrine of riparian rights as to the southern portion of the state, or what he called the irrigable sections, and called attention to the reports of the state engineer on the questions of drainage, irrigation and the effects of hydraulic mining. He favored a labor bureau as an institution that had given satisfaction in other states, and said that six thousand dollars had been appropriated for the purpose by the last legislature but had remained unexpended on account of the failure of the bill for its creation. He spoke also of the state prisons, reform schools and juvenile offenders; stated that on June 30, 1880, there were eleven hundred and sixteen patients at Stockton and eight hundred and thirty-nine at Napa; considered it necessary to keep up and maintain the National Guard, and expressed himself opposed to permitting charges to be made for traveling over the trails in the Yosemite valley and Mariposa big-tree grove. He likewise mentioned a marked decrease of receipts by the state harbor commissioners and accounted for it by the previous financial depression over the whole country; and in conclusion he spoke of the laws recently passed against the Chinese as not the proper method of getting rid of them, and of the rights of women to the elective franchise.1

The term of United States Senator Newton Booth, who had been elected on December 20, 1873, for a full term to commence on March 4, 1875, was to expire on March 3, 1881; and, under the act of congress upon the subject, it became necessary for the legislature of 1881 to elect a successor. On January 13, the second Tuesday after the meeting and organization of the legislature, as prescribed by law, the subject was taken up in each house. The Republicans nominated John F. Miller; the Democrats William T. Wallace. In the senate, Henry George was nominated as a third candidate; and in the assembly, Campbell P. Berry. In the senate, Miller received twenty-seven votes, Wallace ten, and George two; and in the assembly, Miller forty-two, Wallace thirty-four, and Berry two. On the next day in joint assembly Miller was declared elected." He soon afterwards pro

11 Appendix to Legislative Journals, 1881. 2 Senate Journal, 1881, 46, 47, 52.