USA > California > Bench and bar in California. History, anecdotes, reminiscences > Part 12
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15
IO3
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
resolution by the Senate. The forces upon this question stood so evenly divided in the Senate that Broderick lacked but one vote, and this it was impossible to obtain. The contest continued through the greater part of the session, and the utmost vigilance was required on the part of those who opposed the election. There were exceedingly few of the Senators whose firmness on either side of the question could be doubted. The position of each one of them was made known by more than one test vote. The situa- tion was such that if any one of them had, in his own conscience, been con- vinced that it was his duty to change, it would have worked his political ruin to follow his conscience.
Peck, one of those who had steadily voted against going into joint con- vention, was Senator from Butte county; a country merchant, of little experience in public affairs. At one of the most critical periods of the senatorial contest, Senator Peck arose to a question of privilege. He charged that Joseph C. Palmer, who was the head of the most important banking institution in San Francisco, and an active friend of Broderick, had attempted to bribe him with an offer of $5,000, to vote in favor of going into joint con- vention to elect a United States Senator. A resolution followed, summoning Palmer to answer for a breach of the privilege of the Senate, and ordering his arrest. A day was fixed to hear the matter. General Charles H. S. Williams, one of the ablest lawyers ever in this State, was retained as Palmer's counsel, and Colonel E. D. Baker was engaged by the friends of Peck.
It was evident that a mighty struggle was to take place when such giants took the field. Peck's statement was made on the 19th of January, and the trial was concluded on the 3d of February. A large number of witnesses were examined. Palmer escaped through a single dexterous movement of his counsel. It had been informally agreed by all the Senators who were political debaters, that they would permit the trial to proceed without inter- ference on their part, except to vote upon questions as they arose, without debate, and that they should act the part of decorous and impartial judges. Colonel Baker, an orator of profound thought and of more eloquent expression than any of his day and generation, (see Chapter I) was yet no match for General Williams in the management and conduct of a trial. When all was ready and the Senators had settled in their seats and duly put on the air of judges, Palmer was called to the bar. As the accused approached the Secretary's table, General Williams requested, in a quiet and matter-of-fact way, that he be sworn. The Secretary administered the oath, no objection coming from any quarter. Palmer immediately proceeded to relate his story, and had proceeded but a few moments, when it was clearly manifested to the sense of every one present that the act of allowing Palmer to be put on the stand as a sworn witness, was a grave oversight. But it was then too late to repair the error. Palmer swore that he met Senator Peck on the steamer at
104
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA
the time stated by Peck, and that the latter had in explicit terms proposed to him, Palmer, to vote for Broderick if he, Palmer, would give him $5,000, which proposition he, Palmer, courteously declined, and that was all there was of it.
Thus the character of the investigation was at once changed. Palmer became the accuser of Peck, and was on the stand as a sworn witness in support of his charge. This was before the law permitted a party to be a witness in his own behalf in either a criminal or a civil case. Peck had made his statement upon his honor as a Senator, and in no sense as a witness, except in so far as his constitutional oath of office bound him to speak the truth. He was not required to be sworn as a witness. He was a poor, obscure, uninfluential, and comparatively friendless, country member. Palmer was a power in the State. Under these circumstances this strange trial pro- ceeded. There was, of course, no witness to the interview, and, therefore, every fact tending to support the statement of either party became important.
At the close of the testimony, some two days were spent by the Senate in determining whether Colonel Baker should have the opening and close of the argument, or whether General Williams should have that privilege; and some half dozen votes, by yeas and nays, are recorded in the journal, upon various propositions regulating the order of the summing up, without coming to an agreement, until at last the chivalrous spirit of Colonel Baker prompted him to request that General Williams should have the opening and close.
There was one striking feature of this remarkable controversy. While it was fought with the utmost tenacity on both sides, there was an entire concurrence on the part of those opposing the election and supporting Peck- that Broderick had no lot or part in the alleged attempt to bribe, and that he was as unconscious of any proceedings of that character being taken in his behalf as if he had been at the bottom of the sea.
The speeches of Colonel Baker and General Williams occupied two days. The former never, in all his brilliant career, made a more powerful address. And yet no remnant of it has been preserved. The extraordinary circum- stances of the case challenged his powers in all their versatility. Palmer and A. A. Selover reeled under his invective. The "Selover Route" from San Francisco to Benicia has not faded from the memory of those who heard Baker then.
The Senate went into secret session, and there voted without debate. It was in a serious dilemina. There did not appear to be much doubt of Peck's honesty-none whatever of his imprudence in blurting out such a charge against a man of Palmer's standing, with no witness to prove it. The journals show that the Senate extricated itself as follows. Hall, Democrat, of El Dorado, moved the following resolution:
1
105
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
Resolved, That the statement made by the Hon. Senator from Butte, Mr. Peck, alleging against J. C. Palmer an attempt to commit bribery, has not been sustained by the evidence adduced in the investigation.
Many attempts were made to modify the original resolution offered by Hall, but it passed by a vote of 21 to 7. Catlin was among those voting in the negative. Immediately upon the adoption of the resolution Crabbe, Whig, of San Joaquin, offered the following:
Resolved, That this decision of the Senate in this case is not intended in any degree to reflect upon the honor and dignity of Mr. Peck.
This received 17 votes, with but one (Mr. Mahoney, Democrat of San Francisco), against it; ten Senators not voting. Whether Peck or Palmer won the fight has never been determined. The case offers some solemn lessons to young statesinen, as well as to members of the third house. Never attempt to bribe anybody. If you are offered a bribe, decline it, and, instead of pocketing the money, pocket the insult as quietly as circumstances will permit, unless it should happen (which is quite improbable) that you are able to prove the offer by other evidence than your own statement.
During the session of 1853 Mr. Catlin rendered important service to the city of San Francisco, and, in fact, to the whole State, in contributing largely to the defeat of the scheme to extend the city front 600 feet further into the bay. The city front was established by an act of the legislature passed in 1851; and another act in the same year authorized the construction of wharves at the end of the streets, not exceeding 600 feet beyond the water front boundary line. Certain parties claimed title to a tract 600 feet wide extend- ing (a semi-circle) from North Beach to Mission Bay, in front of the estab- lished boundary line; and the scheme involved the repeal of the act of 1851, and the extension of the city front so as to take in the tract so claimed. The · parties interested acknowledged that the State had some interest in the matter, and offered the State one-third of the property. Gov. Bigler was persuaded to believe, and honestly believed, the plan unobjectionable, and that it would be the means of relieving the State treasury from its then impoverished condition, and so he earnestly supported it, not only in his annual message, and in a special message to the legislature, but gave to it all his personal influence, which was very great, especially with the members from the interior and mountain counties. The measure also enlisted a pow- erful support in San Francisco, as millions depended upon its success. The whole extension tract was laid out in city lots, and the claimants had specu- lated largely in the sale of them.
The whole matter was referred in the Senate to a select committee, of which Mr. Catlin was a most industrious and active member. An investiga- tion was held, and all questions, such as nature of the title claimed, effects upon the harbor, etc., were inquired into. Mr. Catlin was a known and
106
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
avowed opponent of the measure, and to him was committed the duty of writing the report, which duty was so well performed that it absolutely killed the scheme outright.
Governor Bigler was so disappointed and indignant, that he publicly pro- claimed in the lobby of the Senate that he would take the stump in the en- suing season and advocate the measure "from San Diego to the Oregon line." But he did not, and he never afterwards advocated an extension of the city front. Every argument advanced in support of the scheme was overthrown, and the evil consequences which would surely follow its success were forcibly set forth in this report. It saved the city and harbor from vast injury, and time has verified the wisdom of those who set their faces against the accom- plishment of this scheme. For strength of argument and deep research into the many vital questions affecting that controversy, this report, which may be found in the journals of the fourth session of the legislature, will bear favorable comparison with any public document in the archives of the State.
In 1854, after service in the State Senate for two years, Mr. Catlin's stand- ing in the Whig party was such that he was tendered one of the nominations for Congress, but he declined it, and promoted the nominations of General (then Major) G. W. Bowie and Calhoun Benhanı. The Democratic party was then divided, but the Whigs were solid and hopeful. Milton S. Latham and James A. McDougall were then in Congress, and were renominated by the Freesoil wing of the Democracy. Latham refused to stand. Phil. T. Herbert and J. W. Denver were nominated by the Musical Hall or Chivalry wing. At the commencement of the canvass the latter apparently had not any chance of success, but later on it became known that they had received the secret nomination of the Knownothings, then first organized, and being a secret order. Their election was nevertheless a surprise to the State.
J. Neely Johnson, a Sacramento lawyer, was nominated and elected Gov- ernor by the regular Knownothings in 1855. During the short life of this party whose existence practically ended at the close of the legislative session of 1856, Mr. Catlin eschewed public affairs, and devoted himself to his pro- fession and his mining interests.
In the summer of 1856 a convention composed of about forty persons, con- stituted of "Old Line Whigs" and ex-Knownothings, nominated a ticket for the legislature, upon which they placed Mr. Catlin and Robert C. Clark (the latter afterwards County Judge and later Superior Judge), as Whigs, with two ex-Knownothings. During the Knownothing regime Colonel Philip L. Edwards had maintained a club of Old Line Whigs, of which Cat- lin and Clark were members, and which boasted 500 members. The two nominees, with little faith in the strength of the nomination, and both averse to making a canvass, which is always demanded in Sacramento county, at first resolutely declined, but were afterward persuaded and flattered into ac-
107
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
cepting the nominations. They were elected (to the Assembly) together with one other on their ticket-John H. McKune, afterward District Judge -while one of the Democratic nominees prevailed over Dr. Powell, the low- est on the combination ticket. Dr. Powell is dead. He practiced medicine, but was an inveterate politician. He was one of the most entertaining stump speakers of his day.
That legislative session opened in January, 1857. The most stirring and important event of the session was one in which Mr. Catlin acted a con- spicuous part-the impeachment of Henry Bates, the State Treasurer. Early in the session vague rumors prevailed that all was not right in the treasury. At the instance of the Treasurer's friends a joint committee of both Houses counted the coin in the treasury on the 13th of January, 1857, and reported that, since the first of that month, the Treasurer had taken from the general fund $124,000 and forwarded the same to New York to meet the semi-annual interest, to become due on the first of July next ensuing, upon the funded debt of the State, and that $130,000 in coin remained in the treasury. These two sums would make the Treasurer's account good, according to the Con- troller's books. His action in sending so large a sum to New York more than four months before it was necessary, was excused by the committee as an overzealous act in the interest of the State ; and was openly commended by the Democratic Journal, the organ of the Democracy at the capital, as a provident act, by which the legislature was prevented from squandering the money ! The Assembly was largely Democratic, and was, apparently, satis- fied with these explanations. Bates was a Knownothing. But there were a few members, prominent among whom was Mr. Catlin, who assailed this report, and openly expressed doubts as to the existence of the facts upon which it was based. It was verbally stated, in behalf of the Treasurer, that the $124,000 was sent to New York through Wells, Fargo & Co., a statement calculated to allay suspicion as to the safety of the funds, and one quite neces- sary to allay such suspicion, by reason of the fact that twice before-once under a former Treasurer, and once under Bates himself, when the transmis- sion of the money had been intrusted to Palmer; Cook & Co .- default in the payment of the interest had been made. It resulted from the debate that the Assembly, by resolution, immediately placed Mr. Catlin, much against his will, at the head of a select committee of three, with full power to send for persons and papers, and to investigate and speedily report upon the whole subject. He was thus suddenly placed in a position where he was made to assume the responsibility of charges which had been insinuated, rather than specifically made ; and this, by the majority who believed in and supported the report of the Joint Committee. His position was critical. If he failed the Treasurer would triumph ; and he, Catlin, would suffer heavily in public estimation. At this time lie had never seen Bates, and never met him per-
108
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
sonally until the latter afterwards appeared before the committee. The Treasurer's friends, at first, were not at all alarmed. Their confidence that no discoveries could be made detrimental to him was manifested in news- papers, and in many other ways. But Mr. Catlin soon, through the favor of a prominent banker, now deceased, and through other sources, became pos- sessed of information which enabled him to summon witnesses, by whose tes- timony he completely uncovered the most carefully concealed but most stupend- ous frauds. This testimony positively established the fact that the joint committee, in the count of the 13th of January, had been deceived ; that fully one-half of the coin found in the vaults on that occasion had been temporarily supplied by outside parties and had been withdrawn the next day. It was also proved that the $124,000 payment was a pretence ; that it had not in fact been sent to New York, but was a fraudulent contrivance to account for so much money previously abstracted from the Treasury. It appeared that an entry was made on the Treasurer's books on the 10th of January, stating that the money was sent to New York by Wells, Fargo & Co. This was the entry that met the eye of the joint committee on the 13th. After it was known that Wells, Fargo & Co. denied having received or sent the money, the name of "Wells, Fargo & Co.," was carefully erased and the name of " Pacific Express Co.," written over the erasure. This "company " was an ephemeral concern, of which the chief clerk of the Treasurer was President and manager. It was also proved by testimony that could not be denied, that during the whole time of the Treasurer's administration, Palmer, Cook & Co. had nearly all of the public moneys ; that in July, 1856, when by the Controller's books there should have been about $250,000 in coin in the vaults, there was in fact only about $16,000 there, and that was removed and deposited with Wells, Fargo & Co. under a scare on the part of the Treasurer, who one day heard that the Vigilance Committee was on the way up the river to cap- ture the State Government. Such a conquest, by the way, if it had happened , before the Treasurer removed the funds, would have exposed the nakedness of the treasury.
It is due to the memory of the unfortunate Treasurer to say that it did not appear that he had personally profited a cent [by his defalcations, which, by Mr. Catlin's report, amounted in the aggregate to the sum of $200,000, during the brief period of one year. He was a physician by profession, with little experience in, and no taste for, public affairs. His nomination had been procured, against his own wishes, by Palmer, Cook & Co., one of the mem- bers of which firm was his boyhood companion and friend. He had accepted the office with reluctance, and had, in fact, with an apparent unconsciousness of wrong, allowed that firm to administer it. He had implicit confidence in their financial soundness, and in their promise to make good the moneys used by them when required. This promise could not be fulfilled, as the banking
109
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
house was in fact then insolvent, and its necessities compelled it to abandon the Treasurer to his fate, after making the best fight possible to protect him by a concealment of the defalcation. The end can be told in a few words. Upon the reading of Catlin's report to the Assembly, on the 9th of February, the Treasurer was invited to make any explanations he desired at twelve o'clock the next day. This he declined, stating that important business re- quired his immediate departure for San Francisco, and asking delay. The response to this was the unanimous passage of a resolution impeaching him for misdemeanors in office, and the appointment of a Board of Managers, of which Mr. Catlin was one, to prepare articles for presentation to the Senate. Before these articles could be prepared he resigned his office. The resigna- tion was accepted by the Governor, and a successor appointed and installed in office-an operation that was accomplished in less than twenty-four hours. Upon the hearing before the Senate, Bates was represented by a strong array of counsel, among whom were Charles T. Botts and Joseph W. Winans. The only defense made was that the accused, being out of office, was not sub- ject to judgment of impeachment. The managers contended that he was im- peached by the Assembly while in office, and could not escape a trial by re- signing his office, and this view was sustained by the Senate, and the judg- ment usual in such cases was pronounced.
It was at this session that Broderick and Gwin were both elected United States Senators. Mr. Catlin voted for neither of them, but with sixteen others voted for Henry A. Crabbe and James W. Coffroth.
In March, 1872, Mr. Catlin was appointed one of three members of the then State Board of Equalization, and served as such until April, 1876. The most effective powers conferred on the board by the legislature were, after a prolonged contest, declared unconstitutional by three of the five judges of the Supreme Court, which led to the abolition of the board. During this period he was in the active practice of his profession, but found time to perform pro- digious labor in the board named.
In 1875 Mr. Catlin was brought forward as a candidate for Governor before the Independent State Convention, but was defeated by the combined votes of the supporters of John Bidwell and Mr. Estee, which, on the final ballot, were cast for General Bidwell. In 1878 he was nominated by the joint convention of the Republicans and Democrats of Sacramento county, as delegate to the Constitutional Convention, but in consequence of the recent death of his wife and other causes, he declined the nomination. In 1879 he was one of the nominees of the Republican party for one of the seven Justices of the re-organized Supreme Court, and was defeated with all but one on his ticket.
Mr. Catlin's legal practice has been varied and extensive in the United States District and Circuit Courts in this State, in the courts of San Francisco,
IIO
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
in Sacramento and adjoining counties, and in the State Supreme Court. While in the active business of his profession he found time to perform to the satisfaction of the proprietors of the old Sacramento Union, the duties of chief editor of that paper at different times for considerable periods, and more par- ticularly from September, 1864, at the commencement of the second Lincoln campaign, to April, 1865. His political articles were generally acknowledged to be just and fair by the Democratic opponents of the war, against whom they were aimed. He criticised Seward's English diplomacy, and condemned the surrender of Mason and Slidell. He supported Juarez through all his trials, and justified the execution of Maximilian in an editorial entitled " The End of a Tyrant," which attracted wide attention from its sentiments and style of expression. It was copied in Spanish in leading Mexican papers. In the course of ten years he successfully defended the Sacramento Union in eight different actions for libel.
Among the most notable and important litigations successfully conducted by Mr. Catlin, was the Leidesdorff ranch case. The title of the Rancho Rio de los Americanos, in Sacramento county, was confirmed by the Land Com- missioners in 1855, with specific boundaries, and by the United States District Court in 1857. The Attorney General of the United States had dismissed an appeal in the case. These boundaries included the town of Folsom and the improvements of the Natoma Water Company upon several thousand acres of land. The water company and the inhabitants of Folsom engaged Mr. Catlin to examine the title, and he having pronounced it good they purchased the lands occupied by them of the executors of Folsom, and paid for them. Soon afterwards, in 1858, Hon. Jacob Thompson, Secretary of the Interior, summarily, and as Mr. Catlin always contended, without authority, set aside the survey of the rancho, which survey had strictly followed the boundary lines specified in the decree of confirmation, and ordered a new survey in a particular manner, by which the town of Folsom and the lands of the water company were excluded. There was no recourse against the executors of Folsom; and the parties who had thus lost their lands and their money naturally looked to Mr. Catlin for relief. He first contested the new survey in the Land Department, and afterwards in the United States District Court. He succeeded in setting aside the Thompson survey; but the one which followed it was but little better. It restored part of the lands to the water company, but still left out the town of Folsom. He succeeded in setting aside this survey and procuring a decree establishing the original survey, under which his clients purchased. From this decree the Government appealed, and the case came up for argument in the United States Supreme Court at the December term, 1863. Mr. Catlin went to Washington, was admitted to the Supreme Court on motion of Judge Jere Black, and after waiting four months reached the argument of the case. He was heard for
III
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
the greater part of two days. The case was exceedingly complicated, and the principles applicable to it were unsettled. The form of the survey was at first sight objectionable, and he entered upon the argument with the whole court against him, except Judge Field, who, as a Judge of the Supreme Court of this State, had become familiar with the principles of law applicable to the case. Mr. Catlin won six of the nine Justices over to his views, and obtained a decision affirming the original survey, upon which the patent subsequently was issued. Thus was finally settled the title, and a litigation was terminated, to which Mr. Catlin had devoted six years of earnest work. His clients had acted upon his advice in purchasing the property. He felt the weight of the obligation, and made good his purpose of maintaining the soundness of his opinion by a long struggle against the government, in which he overcame obstacles which would have discouraged a less determined nature. Like Mr. S. M. Wilson, he was on the losing side of the great issue between the farmers and the miners, being one of the six counsel for the Gold Run Mining Company in the trial of 1882, involving the rights of hydraulic miners. He conducted the examination of the witnesses upon some of the important branches of the case. His argument was confined to the facts, and did not deal with the law of the case. He contended that the testimony showed that the defendant's mining operations did not contribute in any appre- ciable degree to the injuries complained of.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.