In addition

immediate legislative action to prevent threatened disaster to the vast agricultural interests of the state; that he had yielded to that demand, in conjunction with the special request of a large number of the legislators, in calling the extra session; that he had thus done his part, and it only remained for the legislature to do its part. A number of proposed amendments to the constitution and bills of various kinds, generally directed to the subjects propounded by the proclamation, were thereupon introduced; and soon afterwards a great number of petitions and protests from different parts of the state followed. Some were against a proposition to guarantee water companies an income out of their receipts of at least seven per cent per annum on their investments; some were against any reorganization of the supreme court; some were by persons, who had signed anti-riparian-rights petitions, asking the privilege of withdrawing their names; and some were denunciations of the call for an extra session, the unwarranted attack upon the supreme court and the taking of water without compensation to the riparian owner. to these vigorous protests, various newspapers, and particularly the San Francisco Daily Evening Post, charged that members of the senate had corruptly sold their votes in connection with the irrigation question. These newspaper charges were on July 26 brought to the attention of the senate, on a question of privilege by John L. Boone of San Francisco, who pronounced them false and libelous; and, in response to his denunciations, a resolution was adopted, removing the reporter of the Post from the floor and declaring that no reporter of that newspaper should be allowed to report the proceedings of the senate during the remainder of the session. Boone's idea, in respect to the extra session, appears to have been that its action should be limited to the proposing of amendments to the constitution on the subjects of irrigation and water rights, which should be submitted to the vote of the people, and that the details of legislation on those subjects, if adopted by the people, should be left to future consideration. But the senate in general did not seem willing to go even to that extent; and, as a matter of fact, though the assembly adopted several amendments, the senate rejected them all; and the result of the legislation of the extra session turned

out to be nothing except a couple of appropriation acts for paying its own expenses.1

At the same time, however, there were several other very interesting and important subjects, not named in the proclamation nor at all foreseen by Stoneman in making his call for an extra session, that came up for settlement. One was a series of charges of incompetency, by reason of mental and physical infirmity, made by David S. Terry against Chief-justice Robert F. Morrison and Associate-justice John R. Sharpstein of the state supreme court. These justices appear to have incurred the ill-will of Terry on account of decisions in a divorce suit brought by a person, calling herself Sarah Althea Hill Sharon, against William Sharon, the millionaire, a resident of, and United States senator from, the state of Nevada. Terry had espoused the cause of the plaintiff as her attorney; and afterwards, becoming infatuated, married her. Subsequently, when the supreme court, on appeals of her case, ruled adversely to her claims, he, both as advocate and husband, took violent umbrage and, seizing the opportunity of illness on the part of the juctices named, presented the charges referred to and asked the legislature to remove them from office, in accordance with a clause to that effect in the constitution. The application was made in the form of a simple petition, signed by Terry, to each house. The senate referred the matter to its judiciary committee, the majority of which reported in favor of a committee of five members to inquire into it; while W. W. Kellogg, as a minority of one, objected that Terry's charges were not sworn to and that no committee should be appointed or action of any kind taken under the circumstances. This minority report occasioned a postponement, and not long afterwards an indefinite postponement of the entire subject. In the assembly, a committee of seven was appointed to investigate the charges, and a resolution adopted directing copies of Terry's petition to be served upon Justices Morrison and Sharpstein and requiring them to appear and answer before the committee at the supreme court room in the capitol on August 4, 1886. On the day thus 1 Senate Journal, Extra Session, 1886, 1, 24-32; Assembly Journal, Extra Session, 1885, 124.

2 Senate Journal, Extra Session, 1886, 32-34, 60.

fixed, a resolution was adopted to the effect that it was inexpedient to take any further action in the matter; but the next day it was reconsidered, and the committee appears to have gone on and heard testimony. On August 10, a communication, dated August 5, was received from the justices recognizing the right of the legislature to remove them for adequate cause, as provided in the constitution, but declining to recognize any committee as vested with jurisdiction to hear or determine any accusation against them, or to appear or answer before any committee. On the same day the committee reported that Terry's charges were groundless; that the evidence of a large number of witnesses, therewith submitted, showed that there was neither mental nor physical incapacity on the part of either justice to perform the duties of his office, and that the charges should be dismissed as being wholly unsupported by evidence; and with the adoption of this report the subject dropped.1

Another uncontemplated subject that came up for consideration was the election of a United States senator. John F. Miller, who had been elected to that office in 1881 for a full term of six years commencing on March 4, 1881, died at Washington on March 8, 1886, leaving an unexpired term of nearly a year. The legislature not being then in session, Stoneman had appointed George Hearst to fill the office. It probably did not occur to him that a United States senator could be elected at an extra session and a Republican chosen to take the place from his Democratic appointee; but, however this may have been, the United States statute in reference to the subject was clear upon the question; and accordingly on Tuesday, August 3, 1886, both houses proceeded to elect a successor to Hearst to fill out the unexpired term of Miller. The Republicans might now have nominated Aaron A. Sargent, who was their most experienced man for the office; but the same influence, which had excluded him at the previous election, was still at work; and the Republican choice fell upon A. P. Williams. The Democrats nominated George Hearst. In the senate Williams received eighteen votes to thirteen for Hearst; in the assembly Williams received fiftytwo to eleven for Hearst. The next day, August 4, in joint. 1 Assembly Journal, Extra Session, 1886, 22-55.

assembly the votes were announced as seventy for Williams and twenty-four for Hearst out of a total of ninety-four; and Williams was declared elected for the unexpired term ending March 3, 1887.1

After the extra session had lasted a month and nothing in the way of legislation been done, there was talk of final adjournment; and the senate adopted a resolution to that effect, fixing the time for August 20. This, however, was not acceptable to the assembly, and it adopted a resolution to adjourn till Tuesday, September 7, 1886, and then make another attempt to get through the several amendments of the constitution and a few bills relating to irrigation and water rights, which it had passed. Upon this, Stoneman, who was in accord with the assembly, transmitted a special message to both houses, stating that they had met for the purpose of considering certain definite subjects; that a memorial had been presented to him, signed by eightynine members of the legislature, asking for the extra session and pledging their support to the measures contemplated, and that he had trusted in their sincerity. And he could not but believe, in view of the vast importance of the questions involved, that the legislature would yet pass such amendments to the constitution and laws as might be necessary to set aside the English commonlaw doctrine of riparian rights-a doctrine which, if sustained and enforced, would, in his judgment, destroy millions of property and ruin the agricultural interests of a large part of the state. The settlement of these questions would repay a thousand fold the expenses of the session and any additional expenses that might be incurred; and he therefore, on account of the disagreement of the houses and in accordance with the power vested in him in such case by the constitution, adjourned the legislature until Tuesday, September 7, 1886. Thereupon, much confusion reigned in the senate. Some claimed that the legislature was adjourned; others that it was not. Lieutenantgovernor Daggett ruled that it was not adjourned and that it could not be adjourned by the governor until both houses had exhausted their resources in trying to come to an agreement. On appeal from this ruling, Daggett was sustained; but not long 1Senate Journal, Extra Session, 1886, 39-43.

afterwards, he changed his mind and "out of respect for the governor" declared the senate adjourned as ordered.'

When the houses met again on September 7, it was found that they were in no better accord than before. Without the senate, the assembly could do nothing; and the senate was not disposed to act. Some of the senators protested against proceeding any further on the ground that there had been no disagreement of the houses when Stoneman had adjourned them, and that the extra session had therefore lapsed. Others took a contrary view; but evidently they either did not consider the destruction of riparian rights so important as Stoneman did, or found that they could not under the condition of things accomplish anything. Some of them doubtless thought that the doctrine of riparian rights, which had grown up as an integral part of the common. law and been recognized as beneficial from times immemorial, had some virtue at least for those portions of the state that were favored with natural irrigation, and that if these rights ought to be destroyed in some sections of the country it did not follow that they ought to be destroyed throughout the entire land. But, whatever might be the reason, it was plain that the extra session was a failure and that nothing could be accomplished. And this being the general opinion, the houses, without doing anything further, adjourned sine die on September 11, 1886.' 'Senate Journal, Extra Session, 1886, 70–72. "Senate Journal, Extra Session, 1886, 73-87.