Page:History of Woman Suffrage Volume 3.djvu/835

758 was also reading law, was in Sacramento as editorial correspondent for her paper, the Daily Democrat of Oakland, and had ample opportunity to render valuable service to the cause she had so much at heart. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 22 to 9, being ably advocated by Senators N. Green Curtis, Judge Niles Searles of Nevada county, Creed Haymond of Sacramento, and Joseph Craig of Colo. In the Assembly, after weeks of tedious delay and almost endless debate, the bill was indefinitely postponed by a majority of one. By the persistent efforts of Assemblymen Grove L. Johnson of Sacramento, R. W. Murphy, Charles Gildea and Dr. May of San Francisco, the bill was brought up on reconsideration and passed by two majority. The session was within three days of its close, and so bitter was the opposition to the bill that an effort was made to prevent its engrossment in time to be presented for the governor's signature. The women and their allies, who were on the watch for tricks, defeated the scheme of their enemies and had the bill duly presented to Governor Irwin, but not till the last day of the session. Then the suspense became painful to those most interested lest it might not receive his approval. Mrs. Gordon, as editor of a Democratic journal, asserted her claims to some recognition from that party and strongly urged that a Democratic governor should sign the bill. Aided by a personal appeal from Senator Niles Searles to his excellency, her efforts were crowned with success; the governor's message sent to the Senate, when the hands of the clock pointed to fifteen minutes of twelve, midnight (at which hour the president's gavel would descend with the words adjourning the Senate sine die), announced that Senate bill number 66, which permitted the admission of women to all the courts of the State, had received his approval. There was great rejoicing over this victory among the friends everywhere, though the battle was not yet ended.

The same legislature had passed a bill accepting the munificent donation to the State of $100,000 from Judge Hastings to found the Hastings College of Law, on condition that it be the law department of the State University, and the college was duly opened for the admission of students. At the beginning of the December term Mrs. Foltz, who had been admitted to the District Court in San José (being the first woman ever admitted to any court in the State), came to San Francisco, and with Mrs. Gordon applied for admission to the law college. The dean, Judge Hastings, himself opposed to women being received as students, told them it was a matter that must be laid before the board of directors, but that they could attend the lectures ad interim. Three days later they were informed that their application had been denied. Satisfied that the law was in their favor, they immediately appealed to the courts. To save time Mrs. Gordon applied to the Supreme Court and Mrs. Foltz to the District Court, simultaneously, for a writ of mandamus to compel the directors to act in obedience to the law which, the petitioners claimed, did not discriminate against women in founding the State University or its departments. The Supreme Court, wishing perhaps to shirk the responsibility of acting in the first instance, sent their petitioner, Mrs. Gordon, to the lower court, which had in the meantime ordered the writ