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 Jose (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 to issue for Mrs. Foltz; so it was
decided to make hers the test-case, and by the courtesy of Judge
Morrison, now chief-justice of the Supreme Court, Mrs. Gordon was
joined with Mrs. Foltz in the prosecution of the cause. The board
of directors of the college consisted of the chief-justice of the
Supreme Bench and seven other lawyers, among the most
distinguished and able in the State. The case attracted great
attention and deep interest was taken in the proceedings. Judges
Lake and Cope, who were ex-justices of the Supreme Court,
assisted by T. B. Bishop, another learned practitioner at the
bar, were arrayed as counsel for the defense against these
comparatively young students in the law, who appeared unaided in
their own behalf. After one of the most interesting legal
contests in the hist