ambition was not for political advancement. He preferred a judicial position as in the line of his profession. The story was told of him by Judge Robinson, who greatly enjoyed it, that on one occasion when Judge Currey had come into Sacramento from the mountains, they met, whereupon Judge Robinson entered upon an inquiry as to the campaign and the prospects in the country, to which Judge Currey responded, in general terms, that the prospect looked fairly encouraging, and then turning the conversation he said that while travelling in the mountains he had been considering a legal question about which he wished to consult him (Judge Robinson), and thereupon they entered upon a discussion of the legal proposition. Judge Robinwas accustomed to relate this incident with mirthful gusto, at the expense of Judge Currey, who manifested a much greater interest in matters pertaining to the law than in the exciting political questions of the campaign.

son

At the session of the legislature in 1862 a bill was introduced into the assembly for the repeal of the obnoxious act of 1850, which declared Negroes and Indians incompetent as witnesses in any action to which a white person was a party. But even then, with a majority of Union men in the assembly, the bill failed to pass, so inveterate was the prejudice of the majority of the people of California against Negroes and Indians. In 1863, the war having worked out a change of sentiment, the same bill was again introduced into the assembly, and passed by a large majority, and also passed the senate and became a law. There were many opposed to the repeal of the obnoxious law, in 1862, who were eager for its repeal in 1863, and who at that time wished to have it believed they were anti-slavery men in ante-bellum times.

Under the constitution as amended in 1863, Judge Currey was elected a justice of the Supreme Court of the State, and for the next four years served in that capacity. What he did and how he discharged the duties of his office during that term is a matter of record. In 1867 the Republicans renominated him for the same position, but he went down with his party, not because he had failed to meet the expectations of the people, but because of party and political misfortunes for which he was in nowise responsible, and which are fresh in the recollections of many still living.

Respecting him as a jurist and citizen, an eminent lawyer who has known him long and intimately, says:

"The four years of Judge Currey's service on the bench of the Supreme Court commenced with the January term, 1864, and expired with the October, 1867. Volumes 24 to 34 of the official reports contain his opinions. He was Chief Justice of the court during the years 1866 and 1867. With Sawyer, Sanderson, Rhodes, and Shafter, all of whom were eminent judges of distinguished reputations, these four years formed a memorable era in the judicial history of the State, during which more by far than in any other four years of its history were produced decisions of importance delivered in opinions of incalculable value on account of the legal learning embodied in them, and the admirable and classic English in which they are expressed.

"Of all the judges of our highest State tribunal from the beginning of its history, the three who bear the highest reputation among critics, as judicial writers, Nathaniel Bennett, Stephen J. Field, and John Currey are named. In severe simplicity of diction, directness of logical order, clearness of expression, aptitude of illustration, and force of argument, there are those who think Judge Currey not rivalled by any who came before, served with, or who succeeded him on the bench.

"However much the imagination may be successfully employed in illustrating a severe rule of law, or a liberal principle of equity, we find that our subject will have none of it. He either has it not or disdains to use it in his expositions of the rules of even-handed justice. He, evidently, has been a close student and admirer of the old English and American common law judges and chancellors, and, though recognizing the necessity as well as policy of changing ancient and obsolete rules and adapting them to the advanced conditions and greater intelligence of his own age and times, he yet never felt it safe in the purpose of perpetuating principles of law for the use of succeeding generations, to embalm them in anything less enduring than the unadorned, lucid, and forceful style of the ancient sages of the law."

Here ends my account of Judge Currey's public career. It was stormy and full of disappointments; but in the retrospect of these years, he is able to say that he has never bowed himself down before the oppressor, nor subordinated man's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness to brute force of superior might. As a judge, he was honest and just. With his professional brethren he lived upon terms of amity and friendship. Towards young men of his profession he was kind and considerate, both at the bar and on the bench, which many now in full practice gratefully remember.

In 1870, after his retirement from public life, Williams College conferred on him the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. In 1881 he was married to his second wife, a granddaughter of the Hon. William Nelson, his law preceptor and friend of many years; and now in the evening of life he still finds occupation in pursuits of law and literary studies, and in governmental and political affairs, as also in the cultivation and improvement of his farm, for which he believes he has an inherited taste and inclination.

Some of the names of Judge Currey's professional compeers are here mentioned as men of distinguished ability and learning. Judges Harry I. Thornton and R. Augustus Thompson who had been commissioners for the ascertainment and settlement of private land claims in California derived from Mexico, were men of learning and great moral worth. E. W. F. Sloan was a man of great erudition in law and equity jurisprudence, whose statements to courts upon a given question were always accepted as accurate and truthful. Tod Robinson was an analytical reasoner, whose elucidations "o'er all the dark a silvery mantle threw." Colonel E. D. Baker, an orator of national fame, was a philosopher in dealing with the law of evidence and the natural instincts of human life and the motives of human action. James A. McDougall was a man of profound thought, though not an easy speaker. He was a close and cogent reasoner, scarcely equaled by any

other member of the bar. Charles H. S. Williams was a master of commercial law and a learned and skillful pleader, bright, strong and somewhat aggressive in the argument of causes. B. C. Whitman, the courteous gentleman, was an honorable lawyer, and a good citizen in all the relations of life. Jos. W. Winans, the encyclopedia of literature, was an active and ever watchful advocate. John R. McConnell was deeply read in the black letter lore of the law. He could not, with becoming patience, brook contradictions. A. P. Crittenden, whose amiable fairness in his practice was admitted by all, and whose researches were exhaustive, was distinguished as an able contestant for the prize in view. Judge Thomas of Santa Rosa was a man of sound learning. He entertained strong contempt for professional charlatans. Oscar L. Shafter was a man of massive intellectual strength and unequalled forensic power in debate. Henry S. Foote, once governor of Mississippi and afterwards a United States Senator, was amiable in disposition yet of impulsive and impetuous nature, a most interesting conversationalist, astute and quick as a lawyer, able in debate and a most agreeable companion. Jo. G. Baldwin was an able and learned lawyer whose strength of statement and argument flowed through his pen, whose exhaustive fund of humorous anecdotes made him the delightful companion of all his friends. Frederick P. Tracy was a man of sturdy eloquence as a political debater, a man who hated the institution of slavery and would accept no apology for its origin or continuance. His law education was defective, having entered upon the study late in his life. Balie Peyton, once a Whig member of Congress from Tennessee, was a man of impassioned eloquence, of kind nature, the friend and champion of the squatters of Solano and Contra Costa. William A. Duer, the partner of Peyton, was a man whose intellect shone with unclouded luster, and whose learning in commercial law was deep and clear. Gen. John Wilson, the senior member of the California bar, was the devoted friend and champion of squatters and the defender of squatters' rights. He was always pleasant and even joyous sometimes when his cause was lost. Henry Edgerton was the giant orator. He was logical and profound in debate. He was warm in his attachments to his friends but careless of life's opportunities. "A solitary rock

In a far distant sea,

Rent by the thunder's shock,

An emblem stands of thee."

These and others were Judge Currey's friends and the companions of his early professional experience in California. This experience he holds in remembrance as the most enjoyable part of his California life.

"Most of his early professional compeers," writes Mr. Hopkins, "have gone down in the battle of life, and their voices have ceased to echo in the halls of justice, while he, although more than seventy winters

have passed over his head, still stands vigorous as the mountain oak, having brought the sunny cheerfulness of youth down into the winter of age. an unclouded mind enlightened by wisdom and experience, and a memory stored with amusing anecdote, he is still an instructive and pleasant companion alike to the old and the young; and taking a cheerful view of human existence, he is gliding gracefully down the vale of years, aiming to

"Husband out life's taper to the close,

And keep the flame from wasting by repose."

CHAPTER XXXV.

George A. Johnson of Sonoma-A Graduate of Yale-Professor of Greek and Latin-On the Bench in Indiana-A Triumphant Career in California-In the Constitutional Convention and Legislature-Attorney-General of the State-The Great Railroad Tax Cases-The Chinese Exclusion Act-The General's 'resentation Address to the President of the Constitutional Convention of 1878.

To be Attorney-General is to have THE STATE for a client; and the place is one to dazzle the professional eye. Of those who have held the high office in California, the majority have met its responsibilities with signal ability and dignity. Not to go through the entire list, we see in striking prominence John R. McConnell, William T. Wallace, Thomas H. Williams, Jo. Hamilton, J. G. McCullough, and A. L. Hart. These men, distinctively lawyers, have imperishable monuments in their work, evidenced in part by their correspondence with the executive, and their communications to the legislature on weighty questions, and by the Supreme Court reports. The present attorney-general has maintained their standard. A finely educated man, generally, he is, too, a trained lawyer and a strong man of counsel on whom the commonwealth can lean. He and Supreme Judge Works, while opposite in politics, recall each other-coming to this shore from the same State, comparatively late, with reputations won, and quickly mounting higher here.

George A. Johnson, who came to us from Indiana, was born in Maryland in 1829. He attended an academy at Saulsbury, in the last-named State, and at nineteen entered Yale College, graduating therefrom in 1853. In his class were A. D. White, who in recent years was U. S. Minister to Germany, Wayne McVeagh, who became Attorney-General of the United States, and Edmund Clarence Steadman, the poet. He took two prizes in his first year at Yale, for best compositions in English. In the senior year he was awarded, for an essay, the Townsend prize, and was elected one of the editors of the Vale Literary Magazine, and was made chairman of the editorial board. He contested with White, but unsuccessfully, for the highest honor, the "De Forest Gold Medal."

After his graduation from Yale, Mr. Johnson was offered and accepted the chair of Latin and Greek in the Western Military Institute of Kentucky. In less than a year he resigned this position and went to Newcastle, Indiana. He had removed thither from his native place before going to Yale, and had qualified himself for the bar under Judge Elliott of the Indiana Supreme