and People, ex rel.  Field vs.  Turner, 1 Cal., 152.  In the first case, a peremptory writ of mandamus was issued, directed to Judge Turner, ordering him to reinstate us as attorneys; in the second, a writ of certiorari was issued to bring up the order imposing a fine, which was subsequently reversed and vacated, as shown in Ex-parte Field, 1 Cal., 187.  The opinions referred to were delivered by Judge Bennett, and are models of their kind.  Many years afterwards, when a somewhat similar question came before the Supreme Court of the United States, I was called upon to announce its judgment; and in doing so, I followed these opinions, as may be seen by reference to the case of Ex-parte Robinson, 19 Wallace, 510.  I there repeated substantially the doctrine of Judge Bennett, which is the only doctrine that will protect an attorney and counsellor from the tyranny of an arbitrary and capricious officer, and preserve to him his self-respect and independence.

When the order for our restoration came down from the Supreme Court, Turner refused to obey it; and wrote a scurrilous “Address to the Public” about us, which he published in one of the newspapers.  We replied in a sharp and bitter article, signed by ourselves and five other gentlemen; and at the same time we published a petition to the Governor, signed by all the prominent citizens of Marysville, asking for Judge Turner’s removal.  There was a general impression in those days that Judges appointed before the admission of the State into the Union held their offices subject to removal by the Governor.  I hardly know how this impression originated, but probably in some vague notions about the powers of Mexican Governors.  However this may be, such was the general notion, and in accordance with it, a petition for Turner’s removal was started, and, as I have said, was very generally signed.[3] The matter had by this time assumed such a serious character, and the Judge’s conduct was so atrocious, that the people became alarmed and with great unanimity demanded his deposition from office.

In the article referred to as published by us, we said, after setting forth the facts, that “Judge Turner is a man of depraved tastes, of vulgar habits, of an ungovernable temper, reckless of truth when his passions are excited, and grossly incompetent to discharge the duties of his office.”  Unfortunately the statement was perfectly true.  He refused to obey the mandate of the Supreme Court, even talked of setting that court at defiance, and went around saying that every one who had signed an affidavit against him was a “perjured villain,” and that as to Goodwin, Mulford, and Field, he would “cut their ears off.”  He frequented the gambling saloons, associated with disreputable characters, and was addicted to habits of the most disgusting intoxication.  Besides being abusive in his language, he threatened violence, and gave out that he intended to insult me publicly the first time we met, and that,