the citizens. He believed that the state had acted wisely in adhering to hard currency. It had always been a hard money state, its circulating medium being gold and silver. And he hoped it would continue so, and that the general government itself would soon resume specie payments. He was of course opposed to Chinese immigration, but recommended a modification of the Burlingame treaty as the only sure remedy against it. And in conclusion, he promised to cordially co-operate in every effort to reduce the expenses of the state, county and municipal governments to the lowest scale compatible with vigor and efficiency of administration.'

One of the first notable occurrences of the legislature of 1875-6 was the withdrawal on December 10, by R. S. Carey, of proceedings contesting the seat of Creed Haymond as a senator from Sacramento county. He gave, as his reasons for this unusual but in this instance doubtless praiseworthy step, that he was unwilling to permit either personal or party considerations to stand before what he considered the best interests of the people. The contest, he said, if continued, would involve the outlay of much public money, work a hardship upon great numbers of witnesses, might possibly be prolonged through almost the entire session, and would greatly embarrass and impair the usefulness of the incumbent, who held the certificate of election, and to no small extent deprive the county of the services of a senator." Another notable occurrence was the adoption in the senate a few days later of a preamble and resolution, introduced by Thomas H. Laine of Santa Clara county, dispensing with the services of a chaplain on the ground that no expenditure of public money should be made that was not necessary for the public good or for any purpose for which a tax could not legally be imposed; that the constitution as well as spirit and genius of all the institutions of California inhibited any union of church and state and any discrimination in favor of any religious creed; that prayers of faithful and godly men were being offered up in all parts of the state for the legislature as well as all other public officers and servants; that the appointment of a chaplain was

unauthorized by any law; that it was not only unnecessary and expensive but also involved a preference of some particular creed, fostered a spirit of rivalry and contention, bred animosity and heart-burnings, lowered the dignity of the ministry to the arena of party politics, destroyed the solemnity of prayer by reducing it to a mere formula, and made an invidious distinction between different departments of the government by giving one a chaplain and another not. Subsequently in the assembly a resolution, introduced by James E. Murphy of Del Norte county, was adopted abolishing the office of chaplain of that house. This was not the first time the legislature, or one or the other branch of it, had dispensed with a chaplain; instances had frequently occurred before; but it was the first time the reasons for such dispensation were so concisely and forcibly urged. Still another occurrence of this session, that may be called notable, was the appointment by the governor of Henry George, who afterwards attracted attention as the author of a book called "Progress and Poverty" and enunciator of what was called the "single tax" doctrine, to a small office known as that of "inspector of gas meters." The appointment was unanimously confirmed by the senate; and George, doubtless constrained by his necessities while lucubrating his new ideas on political economy, accepted it.2

The first bill approved by Irwin was to prevent changes in the text-books used in the public schools. In the educational department throughout the state, as well as in other departments, there were then, as there have been since, men whose object was to make money out of their position. It made no difference to them how they made it; and for that reason there were various crooked methods of corruption, requiring constant vigilance to keep even with them. At this time the evil to be met was the change nearly every session of text-books, brought about chiefly by corrupt combinations of book-sellers and school trustees, necessitating the purchase several times a year of new school books. It was to put a stop to these shameless practices-which however was only partly accomplished-that the act was designed and pushed through with so much expedition. Another senate bill, pushed

1 Senate Journal, 1875-6, 60, 64; Assembly Journal, 1875-6, 293.

through this legislature with considerable haste though not without opposition and which afterwards, instead of meeting with favorable acceptance, excited violent condemnation, was an act, introduced by George H. Rogers, to authorize the city and county of San Francisco to provide and maintain public water works, and commonly known as the "Rogers' bill." Though probably well intended, it seems to have been crudely drawn, without proper guards, and its opponents claimed that it might easily lead to the bankruptcy of the metropolis. However this may have been, it is certain that the San Francisco people were so determined and active in their opposition that nothing was or could be done under the act; and a few years subsequently the San Francisco legislative delegation was pledged in advance against it; and its repeal was the first act of the legislature of 1880.1

Another act of great importance to San Francisco passed at this session was the so-called Dupont street widening act. Several of the old streets of the city, laid out originally by Vioget in the Yerba Buena village days, including Kearny and Dupont streets, were found to be much too narrow. In 1866 a remedy was applied, so far as the business portion of Kearny street was concerned, by an act for its widening, which afterwards in the course of a few years took place and proved a great success. It was not only of benefit to the city but, being carried out with justice and economy, it also, notwithstanding some resistance, gave general public satisfaction. The good results thus accomplished induced the starting of other street projects for the city, claimed to be equally beneficial but which turned out to be the prolific cause of long and bitter litigation, very costly to the citizens. One of them was an act of 1872, for the opening of a new street running across blocks from the then business center of the city to North Beach and to be known as Montgomery avenue. That thoroughfare was accordingly opened the property taken being paid for in what were known as Montgomery avenue bonds, the validity of which was a question of contention in the courts for many years, with the general current of decisions against them. It has always been a matter of doubt in some quarters whether the opening of Montgomery avenue did not, like the cutting of 1 Senate Journal, 1875-6, 293, 317, 358; Stats. 1875-6, 501; Stats. 1880, 1.

Second street through Rincon Hill in 1869, do more harm than good: certainly neither accomplished what was predicted by their projectors. On the other hand, the widening in the business portion of the city of Dupont street, afterwards called Grant avenue, was a valuable improvement. There were bonds in this case as in the other. But in the proceedings leading to their issuance and distribution, there were said to be, and doubtless were, many frauds; and the subsequent litigation over the Dupont street bonds was even longer, more determined and more costly than that over Montgomery avenue bonds, with some decisions for and some against them.'

An effort at retrenchment was made at this legislature; but it was rather in reference to extraordinary outlays than to the oppressive regular expenses of state, county and municipal governments. A bill to renew John A. Sutter's annuity for two years longer was defeated, though that of James A. Marshall was continued. A senate bill for an appropriation to aid exhibitors from California at the Philadelphia centennial exposition raised the question of the legality and propriety of such expenditures, and elicited much discussion. On the one hand, it was argued that there was no constitutional prohibition against such an appropriation, while policy, patriotism and state pride were in favor of it. Should California, it was asked, "the most favored state of the Union, inferior to none in natural resources and, in proportion to her age, the peer of any in advancement," lag behind on such an occasion? Should we "tarnish our reputation and, instead of sustaining and defending our character for energy, enterprise and liberality, sink into parsimonious disrepute"? On the other hand, it was argued that the centennial exhibition was only a great private enterprise and should be sustained solely by the liberality and wealth of private individuals; that to apply public funds to such enterprises would be vicious legislation, since it would establish an example for other assaults on the treasury and expose it to be depleted by means wholly foreign to the purposes of taxation; that taxes could be legally collected only for objects within the purpose for which governments were established-of which 1 Stats. 1865-6, 37; 1871-2, 911; 1875-6, 433. 2 Senate Journal, 1875-6, 501; Stats. 1875-6, 681.

the centennial was not one-and that therefore the proposed act would be an unwarranted and abusive exercise of legislative power, and in effect an appropriation of the private property of some citizens for the use and advantage of others. This reasoning, though the bill passed the senate, seems to have killed it in the assembly, and it failed.'

Lieutenant-governor James A. Johnson in his inaugural remarks as president of the senate had said that the senators, elected on the Democratic platform, were pledged "that a proper freight-and-fare bill should be passed; that a proper irrigation scheme should be devised; that the school fund should be cared for, and that everything mentioned in our platform, to which we are pledged, should be carried out." The response to these pledges, in so far as there was any, was two acts—one for the appointment of commissioners of transportation to fix the maximum charges for freights and fares on railroads, and the other to create an irrigation district, to be called the west-side irrigation district. As a matter of fact, however, neither accomplished any important purpose; and it was left for the approaching new constitution and future legislatures to wrestle with the very large subjects thus proposed. Several other questions of equally great moment cropped out at this session, but were also left unanswered. One was presented in a petition of citizens of the upper Sacramento valley asking for relief against the débris from hydraulic mines; another in reports in each house against the evils of land monopoly and particularly the disposal in immense tracts of domain under what were known as the timber and desert land acts of congress. Still another subject of vast importance, that had to be left for the future, was presented in a bill "to save the vineyards and extirpate the phylloxera." There were also introduced at this session of the legislature two other subjects, the agitation of which may perhaps have been demanded by the condition of the times; but which under any circumstances were the fruitful sources of much future wrangling and damage to the state. One, purporting to be a resolution of inquiry as to Chinese 1 Senate Journal, 1875-6, 425, 480; Assembly Journal, 1875-6, 639.

3

2 Senate Journal, 1875-6, 6, 20, 21; Stats. 1875-6, 731, 783.

Assembly Journal, 1875–6, 275, 602; Senate Journal, 1875-6, 70.

4. Assembly Journal, 1875-6, 552.