John T. McCarty, in a letter to Judge William E. Turner, dated the 22d of November, takes occasion to apply several vile epithets to myself, and uses the following language to Judge Turner:  “Having been present at the first term of your court ever held in this district, and most of your courts since that time, and being familiar with almost every decision and your entire conduct upon the bench, I take pleasure in saying that I never have practiced before any court where there was so great a dispatch of business, so much order and general satisfaction rendered by the rules and decisions of the court, and that, notwithstanding the base denunciations of your enemies, a large majority of the people who have attended your courts approve and sustain your positions and decisions.”

During the session of the District Court, at its first term, this same John T. McCarty was called before the County Judge to give his testimony on the return of a writ of habeas corpus, and then he testified “that the conduct of Judge Turner on the bench was the most outrageous he had ever witnessed in any court in which he had practiced;” and the tenor and effect of his whole testimony was in the highest degree condemnatory of the conduct of Judge Turner.

One of two things follows:  If the statement in the letter be true, then John T. McCarty was guilty of perjury before the County Judge; but if he testified to the truth, then his statement in the letter is false.  In the one case he is a liar and in the other a perjured scoundrel.  Thus convicted out of his own mouth, his vile epithets respecting myself are not worth a moment’s consideration.

    Stephen J. Field. 
    Marysville, Dec. 21st, 1850.

On my return from the Legislature, and afterwards, this same McCarty was in my presence the most abject and humble wretch I knew in Marysville.  He almost piteously begged recognition by me, and was ready to go down on his knees for it.  He was a blustering miscreant, full of courage where no force was required, and ready to run at the first appearance of a fight.  He was one of a class, all of whom are alike, in whom bluster, toadyism, and pusillanimity go in concert, and are about equally developed in degree.

LIFE IN THE LEGISLATURE

Immediately after the election I commenced the preparation of a bill relating to the courts and judicial officers of the State, intending to present it early in the session.  The Legislature met at San Jose on the first Monday of January, 1851, and I was placed on the Judiciary Committee of the House.  My first business was to call the attention of the Committee to the bill I had drawn.  It met their approval, was reported with a favorable recommendation, and after a full discussion was passed.  Its principal provisions remained in force for many years, and most