where complete records in all cases should be kept, and that all the other prisons should be subordinate branches. He also invited earnest attention to the subject of irrigation and the necessity of providing for the protection and regulation of the use of water—a matter which had proved one of the most difficult to deal with in legislation. In conclusion, he recommended the strictest economy; the guarding against the creation of new offices or commissions, and the abolition of any useless ones that might be in existence. "To lighten the burdens of taxation, to reduce the expenses to the lowest possible standard, to allow the largest personal liberty consistent with the general welfare, not to govern except where government is necessary, to administer the law evenly and impartially on all classes and interests-these," said he, "are my ideas of the requirements of the day and of the true theory of our form of government."1

One of the first matters of special importance and interest that came up in the senate of 1883 was a question of confirming appointments. Governor Perkins at the end of 1880 had named N. Green Curtis as a regent of the university of California; but the senate of 1881, on account principally of Curtis' prominent advocacy of the confederacy during the civil war, refused to confirm him. Upon this, Perkins sent in an extraordinary special message to the effect that he supposed the senate had been laboring under "some misunderstanding as to the gentleman named," and renominating him. The senate again rejected him. Subsequently, Perkins nominated N. Green Curtis for the third time. and also Isaias W. Hellman and Leland Stanford as regents of the university, as well as a few other officers; and it was these names that now came up for confirmation. They were all refused confirmation; and, after considerable discussion as to the effect of an unconfirmed appointment by the governor, Curtis and Hellman, who had been acting in the meanwhile as regents, resigned their offices, and Stanford's name was withdrawn by request. Though such a rejection of a prominent Republican by a Democratic senate or of a prominent Democrat by a Republican senate was not unusual and was almost invariably accepted 11 Appendix to Legislative Journals, 1883.

Senate Journal, 1881, 18, 40, 58, 78; 1883, 39–41, 249, 256.

with graceful submission to the dominant party, it was said that Stanford felt greatly chagrined; and, according to some accounts, it was partly for that reason that he determined to build and endow a university of his own. Though there may have been no truth in these rumors, it is certain that soon afterwards he commenced making arrangements for his magnificent institution, called the "Leland Stanford Jr. University” at Palo Alto in Santa Clara county, which in a few years became, if not a rival of the state university at Berkeley, a twin seat of learning; and it was thus that California acquired the proud distinction, not only of having done more and better for education than any other state of its years in the Union, but also of having two of the highestgrade educational institutions in the United States.

The next matter of interest was an act for the repeal of the so-called "Sunday law." It was the first bill offered in the senate and passed that body by a vote of twenty-two ayes to nine noes. In the assembly it passed by a vote of forty-seven ayes to twentyone noes. At this session were also passed important actswhich either could not be reached or had failed at the previous sessions under the new constitution-concerning roads and highways; the improvement of streets; the classification of municipal corporations; the organization, incorporation and government of municipal corporations; the establishment of a uniform system of county and township governments; and the apportionment of the state into congressional, senatorial and assembly districts. At this session also was passed an act establishing a state board of horticulture, which in the course of a few years and especially under the presidency of Ellwood Cooper, an enthusiastic fruitgrower of Santa Barbara county, accomplished great and lasting good to the state. The ready recognition and acceptance, by this board, of the discovery, by Albert Koeberle, of Australian insects that destroy most of the fruit-tree pests, and the importation and dissemination by it of these insects, have not only already been of incalculable benefit, but have suggested the plan and opened the way for further activity in the same and cognate directions, the importance and value of which are beyond estimation. In 'Senate Journal, 1883, 60; Assembly Journal, 1883, 239. 2 Stats. 1883, 5, 24, 32, 58, 85, 93, 296, 299.

the same line, though not attended with the same success as a state institution, was an act to establish a board of silk culture. Another act of this session, which seems, however, to have been unnecessary, or at least has not accomplished the good expected of it, was for the establishment and support of a bureau of labor statistics.'

A resolution was introduced in the assembly, early in the session, to investigate the affairs of the railroad commissioners who had just gone out of office. An attempt to table it having been defeated by a vote of sixty-nine to seven, the resolution was unanimously adopted, and the subject referred to the committee on corporations, which reported towards the end of the session. It in substance found that the commissioners, Stoneman, Cone and Beerstecher, had not properly attended to their duties but carried on other business; that Stoneman did not make anything out of the office; that Cone, though wealthy before, had received deeds for large tracts of land from the railroad company while in office-intimating that he must have been afforded extra facilities in procuring them-and that Beerstecher had gone into office poor and come out comparatively rich. It also found that Stoneman had made an attempt to accomplish something in the way of regulating freights and fares, but had been defeated by his colleagues; and that Cone shortly before the end of his term, but so late that nothing could be accomplished, had also made a similar attempt. It declared in effect that no good had been done by the commission and asked that the testimony taken on the investigation should be published, which was accordingly ordered. Whatever may be said of the unfriendliness of the committee to Cone and Beerstecher and its manner of handling the subject, there can be no doubt that the railroad commission was so far not a success; and that neither of these two commissioners gained any credit with the people for the manner in which he had filled the office."

It can not be truthfully said that office-holders during the previous administration were worse than ordinary, or that they were not better than had been the case in many former administraStats. 1883, 27, 289, 369.

* Assembly Journal, 1883, 33, 449.

tions; but it is certain that in this session of 1883, and particularly in the assembly, there was a more than common disposition to make and entertain accusations. In addition to the railroad commission, the state prison management received its attention; and a minority report was made, charging loose and negligent conduct by the warden; but, if there was any evidence to sustain the allegation, it did not appear. It is certain that Governor Perkins' prediction that there would be no further need of appropriations for the state prisons was not realized. Among other matters of inquiry, instituted in the assembly, was one against Judge Marcus P. Wiggin. This officer held under an act which had been passed in 1880 for an additional judge of the superior court of Mono county. Several charges of misconduct were made against him; and an investigation resulted in a report that he should be removed from office. Wiggin replied and defended himself with spirit; but it made no difference. An impeachment was moved and for a while there seemed a likelihood of a long and costly trial. But before matters went further, the charges were withdrawn and Wiggin resigned his office. And about the same time, the act of 1880, providing for an additional judge of Mono county, was repealed.'

The women's rights advocates continued their storming of the halls of legislation, but failed to accomplish anything except to keep up the agitation. One of them asked for the passage of an act "to declare and protect the identity of married women." Her object seems to have been "to recognize a married woman as an individual and not the slave of her husband." It is possible, and indeed probable, that by identity she meant individuality; but under any circumstances she appears to have had little idea of what she was seeking; and, instead of accomplishing anything, she was simply affording another instance, too common in the controversies about women's rights, of a good cause injured by poor advocacy. Another project offered at this session was a bill to provide what was fondly called "a simple, speedy and inexpen

1

Assembly Journal, 1883, 432, 581; Senate Journal, 1883, 272, 277, 346, 2 Stats. 1880, 99; Assembly Journal, 1883, 274, 449, 594, 627, 641, 645; Stats. 1883, 62.

Assembly Journal, 1883, 611.

sive system of procedure in civil cases." Its author's idea seems to have been to do away with all the learning of the law, and accomplish for jurisprudence what some unbalanced minds have proposed for government by returning to a state of nature. He appears to have good-naturedly admitted that all other lawyers would differ from him; but he maintained that "the opinion of a single reputable attorney, condemnatory of the existing system and recommendatory of that proposed by the bill under consideration, should have more weight than the combined testimony of all other attorneys to the contrary." But, like many other reforms so exceedingly far ahead of the comprehension and appreciation of contemporaries, it got no further than introduction and died of immaturity. As, however, no such bills passed the houses, Stoneman had little or no occasion to exercise the veto power. He in fact used it on very few occasions. In one instance he disapproved a bill because an identical act had already been approved; in another instance he vetoed a bill appropriating money to purchase trails in Yosemite valley on the ground that enough money had already been appropriated for that purpose; and in still another instance he struck from the general appropriation bill an item of nine thousand dollars, for contingent expenses of the controller's office, on the ground that only two hundred dollars had been asked for; and all these vetoes were, almost as a matter of course, sustained.2

Scarcely had the legislature adjourned, when railroad matters again became the subject of attention. The new railroad commissioners-Gideon J. Carpenter, William P. Humphreys and William W. Foote had taken office in January, 1883; but it soon became manifest that they were inharmonious and that nothing satisfactory to public expectation would be accomplished. Carpenter and Humphreys seemed to agree, but did nothing; while Foote, like Stoneman in the previous commission, was in opposition. Being, however, a man of combative nature and much oratorical force, instead of merely making his objections and resting on them like Stoneman, he kept up a regular fusilade of hot shot, which if it accomplished nothing else rendered the position of his Assembly Journal, 1883, 224, 265; Senate Journal, 1883, 248. Senate Journal, 1883, 407, 413; Assembly Journal, 1883, 628.