ceeded to Washington, took his seat and became a very efficient member of the national council. He was especially active in bringing about a modification of the Burlingame treaty with China, and the acts of congress, passed during his incumbency, for the regulation of Chinese immigration. He, however, did not live to complete his term-dying at Washington on March 8, 1886, and leaving a vacancy of one year, which was afterwards filled in part, under appointment, by George Hearst, and in part, under election, by A. P. Williams.

On January 13, Perkins presented a special message on the drainage or, as it was more commonly called, the débris question. He said that, though the preservation of the navigability of the navigable waters should be a charge of the general government, the state had much to gain by a successful cure of the débris evil and much to lose by a failure of all attempts in that direction. He was of opinion that the state was not only under obligations to afford to the farmers the protection which it had persuaded them to cease seeking through the courts; but that, as it had sold its swamp and overflowed lands upon condition of reclamation by the purchasers, it should do nothing to hinder or prevent the fulfillment of that condition by permitting the rivers to be so filled up as to render all plans of reclamation futile. He had been assured by engineers, he continued, that the remedy of the débris evil was entirely practicable. The rivers could be made better than ever; but it would have to be by proper treatment, systematic and long continued. This-the relief of the state from the peril with which it was threatened by débris-was, he thought, the main duty of the hour. He had approved the drainage act of the last session because its principles seemed sound and he believed it would accomplish the desired purposes. And he hoped that further aid would be rendered and provision made "for the prosecution of such remedial works as shall restore the carrying capacity and navigability of our water-ways; deliver the farmers of the upper Sacramento from destruction from detritus and the farmers of the lower Sacramento from destruction by floods; enable our rivers to carry their highest flood waters without injury or danger to the country and the cities past which they flow; preserve the navigability of our river systems as high

ways of commerce; remove all apprehensions concerning the bay of Suisun and the harbor of San Francisco; and at the same time permit the continuance of those mining operations which add so largely to the wealth of the community and support so considerable a percentage of the population.":

Notwithstanding the débris message, there were many members of the legislature who did not believe in the methods contemplated by the state engineer and especially in those proposed by the drainage act of April 23, 1880. That act had met with great opposition at the time of its passage, particularly in the senate; and, though it passed, some who voted for it had doubts about its efficiency. The experience of a year seems to have convinced them that the act did not and could not accomplish the purpose designed; and they were ready, in so far as possible, to recall their action. An act to repeal the drainage act, introduced into the senate early in the session, was passed by that body by a vote of thirty-four to six; but in the assembly it was refused first reading by thirty-nine to thirty-five. This refusal of the assembly, however, made little difference, as the drainage act in the following July was by the supreme court declared unconstitutional; and nothing was left as net result except a lot of worthless so-called débris-impounding dams on some of the rivers and a big bill of expense.

Under the provisions of the constitution, the legislative session of 1881—and the provisions applied to all subsequent sessions— was limited to sixty days or, what amounted to much the same thing, pay of members was not to be allowed for a longer period. The previous legislature had given their services gratuitously for an extra week for the purpose of finishing up their business; but, as it was not to be expected that this precedent would be followed, the legislature promptly determined to adjourn, at the expiration of the sixty days, on March 4. Not much had been accomplished; it was found impracticable under the circumstances to do anything in reference to a new system of county and city governments, contemplated by the new constitution, which in fact. 11 Appendix to Legislative Journals, 1881.

2 Senate Journal, 1881, 9, 216; Assembly Journal, 1881, 405; People vs. Parks, 58 Cal. 624.

required long and careful work; and many other important matters, including the general appropriation and tax levy bills, had to be, or at least were, passed by. On March 3, Perkins by special message called attention to the failure to pass these indispensable measures; but the reply was that the new constitution did not allow sufficient time to accomplish all that was required; and that all that could be done was to call an extra session. Both houses, in so far as there was an expression of opinion, seemed to favor an extra session; and on March 4, in accordance with previous determination, the legislature of 1881 adjourned for the session."

On March 24, 1881, feeling himself constrained by the situation of affairs, Perkins issued a proclamation to convene the legislature of 1881 in extra session. As required by the constitution, he stated the purposes of his call, which he gave as the passage of bills for general and deficiency appropriations, for tax levy, apportionment and a general road law, and the confirmation. of executive appointments. He fixed April 4, 1881, as thetime and limited, or rather attempted to limit, the period of the session to twenty days. The houses responded by re-assembling at the time appointed. Bills on the subjects indicated by the governor were introduced; and the necessary appropriation and tax levy acts were passed. A bill relating to highways and roads in the state was also passed; but some of its features evoked much opposition; and in the end Perkins vetoed it. He also exercised the power, given him by the constitution, to strike out several items, of which he disapproved, in the general appropriation bill. A special appropriation bill for payment of the expenses of the extra session, which though not named by Perkins in his proclamation was allowed by the constitution, was also passed. It appears to have been supposed by the governor on April 20, 1881, when he approved this bill, that the extra session would not last beyond the twenty days he had named; but at the expiration of that time neither the general appropriation nor the tax levy bill had been completed; and the houses, instead of sitting only twenty days, sat nineteen days longer, or in all thirtynine days. Before the final adjournment, a bill to pay the 'Senate Journal, 1881, 378, 379, 395; Assembly Journal, 1881, 444, 478, 479.

additional expenses was passed; but when it came to the governor he vetoed it on the ground that forty-two thousand seven hundred dollars had already been appropriated for the extra session; and he thought that three weeks was ample time to do all that was required. The houses, however, took a different view of the subject and overruled the veto-the senate by twenty-eight votes against ten, and assembly by fifty-nine against nine.'

The extra session came to an end on May 3, 1881. Upon the adjournment, William H. Parks, speaker of the assembly, took occasion to remark that the assembly had been subjected to criticism and misrepresented by the press. But time would make all things right. "I fear," he continued, "the public do not fully realize the difficulties surrounding the legislature under the present constitution. I would challenge the highest intelligence to frame the necessary laws in sixty days, let alone getting eighty men to agree to them. It will be a sad day for the state when it has a legislature that will legislate literally according to the letter of that marvelous instrument. What are legislators to domake unconstitutional laws or disagree? What could they do but the latter? I believe the day near at hand when the constitution will be stripped of its evils by the voice of the people through the legislature or in a convention. Evil must be the state of affairs so long as it exists unchanged. Meanwhile, let the press howl. As for myself, I have the consciousness of having done my duty as I conceived it, faithfully to the people and under the dictates of my oath. I have had the support of the members of this branch, over which I have presided. More than that I do not ask. The press attacks on myself I care not for. I can wait for vindication; and the truth will come out in time in spite of misrepresentation and embittered prejudices.”

On July 2, 1881, the entire community was horrified by news of the murderous attack upon James A. Garfield, president of the United States, by a disappointed office-seeker, named Charles J. Guiteau. Garfield, in the four months of his administration, had

1Senate Journal, 1881, 472, 560, 568, 572; Assembly Journal, 1881, 558, 641, 648.

Assembly Journal, 1881, 653.

already approved himself a man of integrity and ability; and, notwithstanding the electoral vote of California was against him, he had grown rapidly in favor and was respected even by his political opponents. He had not only recommended himself to the people of the Pacific Coast by his stand on the question of Chinese immigration, and by his declaration upon accepting the nomination that "it will be the duty of congress to mitigate the evils already felt and prevent their increase by such restrictions as, without violence or injustice, will place upon a sure foundation the peace of our communities and the freedom and dignity of labor;" but he had also shown by his action that he meant and was disposed to carry out the pledges and promises he had made. The sad news of his death on September 14, 1881, cast a shadow of sorrow over the entire Union, second only to that caused by the assassination of the great Lincoln; and nowhere was the sorrow more general and sincere than among all the people of every class in California. Upon his death, the office of president of the United States devolved upon Chester A. Arthur, who had been elected on the same Republican ticket as vice-president; and the administration was carried forward on substantially the same principles and maxims with which it had been commenced. Arthur was the fourth vice-president upon whom the office of president had thus been cast; and he filled it quite as acceptably as any and much more so than two of the others.

From the end of the extra session of 1881 to the beginning of 1883, there was to be no meeting of the legislature; and the state got along very well on what had already been done towards putting the new constitution into operation, explaining its meaning, remedying as far as possible its defects and harmonizing the laws with its provisions. At the beginning of 1883, when the legislature of that year met and the officers elected at the previous. state election entered upon their offices, Perkins was afforded an opportunity, through his last message, to review what had taken place during the previous two years and the results. He presented the document on January 9, 1883. He dilated in it upon the auspicious opening of the new year, the success that had attended business of all kinds, the abundant harvests, the ample yield of orchards and vineyards, the undiminished product of