[Brayton deed of November twenty-eighth, eighteen hundred and seventy, read by witness.] Mr. Dwinelle has the most correct knowledge of this subject. It appears from this deed that the right reserved to the University to enter upon said land and lay pipes for the conveyance of water was so limited that it should not interfere with the use of the land for cultivation by Mrs. Brayton. This limitation has proved of no value to the Brayton conveyance, because I have ascertained, and Mrs. Brayton has informed me, that she considers that the land conveyed to Brayton, upon which the water is located or from which it springs, is barren and rugged, and unfit for agriculture. When this subject was so referred to the Land Committee, as above stated, they proceeded, in accordance with the authority of the Board of Regents, to have a survey made of the land of the University and of Mrs. Brayton, by a surveyor named William Hammond Hall, for the purpose of determining whether Mr. Brayton's deed did agree with the condition of the land as surveyed. The survey made by Mr. Hall determined it did not. The committee, thereupon, after delay caused by her absence from the State, had an interview with Mrs. Brayton, at which they stated the difficulty which existed in the description of her deed, informing her, at the same time, the Regents were willing to correct and desired to amicably adjust the water question. She stated that whatever difficulty existed in the deed, if any, was to her a matter of no concern, as she did not desire correction. The committee, thereupon, asked her if she would be willing to sell to the University that tract of the land conveyed to her, which, although small in area, was the portion contiguous to the water supply. She stated that she did not desire to sell a portion, but would sell all to the University at what she termed an exceedingly low price, inasmuch as she had, from a desire to accommodate the University, retained the land from sale to others at a high price, because she was satisfied the University would ultimately need it for water purposes. As she was unprepared to state definitely whether she would sell the portion named by the committee or would not sell less than the whole-and in either event she was unprepared to name a price-the interview terminated with an understanding that she would take the question under advisement, and, upon reaching a determination, would apprise the committee thereof. She subsequently, through her agent, sent in a communication to the committee stating her willingness to sell all the land, and naming a price which was represented as exceedingly reasonable. The sum named, I do not now remember. Before any meeting was had of the Regents, whereby the committee could be enabled to report to them this offer, the said agent of Mrs. Brayton addressed another letter to the com mittee, in which he substantially stated, on her behalf, that, in consequence of the indifference with which her offer, which was intended for the benefit of the University, had been treated, she peremptorily withdrew from her first offer. This terminated all negotiations with her, and left the subject in statu quo, where it at present remains. The indifference she complained of was imaginary as neither the committee nor the Regents had an opportunity of acting on the matter between her first and second communications. Mr. Donovan-From your reading of the deed does it give the Uni versity the right to improve the water supply?

A. I think it does, as the land is rugged-unfit for agriculture.

Mr. Hill-Do you know what land Mrs. Brayton wanted to sell? A.-All of the property held by her at the University, as I understand.

Q. What steps have been taken as to the Heywood Springs?
A.-None whatever.

Mr. Nunan-Is there a law existing as to the condemnation of land and water?

A.-Yes; but it is an expensive process.

Mr. Hill-What is best for the State to do?

A.-The best course is to purchase the land at a fair valuation-if

it cannot be had for that, then condemn it.

Q.-The University is receiving seventy-five dollars per month for water; the proper way is to secure the Heywood Springs. [Witness reads Heywood's deed, December fourth, eighteen hundred and sixty. The Legislative Committee of the Board of Regents is Hager, Stebbins, Haight, Felton, Martin.]

Q-Does the Board of Regents control the rights of the College of California to the water?.

Was a Regent from the first organization until April, eighteen hundred and seventy-four. Was a Trustee of the College of California, and still am one, as the incorporation still exists. Some time in eighteen hundred and sixty-six Mr. Willey, Vice President of the College of California, and a Trustee, asked me if the springs on the college lands could be condemned by an incorporated water company. I said yes. He said it was important to retain the springs, and asked me to devise a plan by which they could be retained. I caused to be formed a water company, called the California College Water Company, by articles of incorporation, dated July twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, and filed next day, with five trustees-all Trustees of the College of California-of which I was the President, Rev. J. A. Benton, Secretary. The corporation applied to the College of California, and procured a deed of their water-rights, springs, etc., and the right to erect dams and basins in Strawberry Creek, the right of way for flumes, pipes, etc., dated September fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six. We gave them half the stock as a consideration of the conveyance, and made an agreement to dam the basin of Strawberry creek, at its outlet, within one year after date, and hypothecated to them the other half of the capital stock as a security for our agreement to build the dam. This was a device to prevent our water from condemnation by transferring to the water company the privileges above mentioned. We did not build the dam. At the end of the year the college asked us to deliver absolutely the stock held by the water company to them, and not put them to the expense of a law suit to enforce the agreement. We delivered the stock. That left an outstanding valid water company owning the water, right of way, etc., and the College of California owned all the stock. The company borrowed of the College of California its library fund of seven thousand five hundred dollars. Mr. Willey superintended the construction of the flumes, collecting of water, reservoirs, etc. I superintended the laying of the pipes. While in Europe, in eighteen hundred and sixtynine, the Regents of the University made an arrangement by which

The land immediately back of the University is owned by Barhoilet, Shaw, and Pheifer.

Mir. Beazell-Does not the bed of Strawberry Creek belong to Mrs. Brayton ?

A-Mrs. Brayton owns, a strip which crosses Strawberry Creek. The springs opened by Duncan are not on the Brayton land; these springs are principally on the land owned by Barhoilett and Pheifer; the pipes are through the land of Glasscock and Brayton.

Was the Heywood Springs on the undivided. land?
Yes.

-Did the University have any interest in the Heywood land? A.-Don't know. The Heywood: Springs were on the land we divided

Q-If the University ever had any interest in the undivided land she would have an interest in the springs?

A.-The land we divided was in the Peralta Ranch,
Q.-How many acres are in the undivided tract?
A.-About two thousand eight hundred acres:

Q-Do you know what proportion the University owns?

A.-I don't know enough about it. There is about five hundred acres in the water-shed-the Heywood part, eighty-five acres. The Commissioners with me were E. C. Sessions and G. Potter: Sessions has an abstract made of the rights of the University, which can be had in his office.

J. W. SHANKLIN, sworn.

My position is land agent of the University. Question-How much remains unsold?

Answer-See report to July first, eighteen hundred and seventy-six. Q-That report gives all you know?

A.-They are sold for five dollars per acre-the excess over one dol-
lar and twenty-five cents, goes to the University.
Q-Have the lands of the University been segregated?
A.-No.

Q. Could you give us the names of those who own the land?
A. Yes.

Q-Was there any limit to the quantity sold to one person? A.-No.

[The books were produced and partially examined.]

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. C. STEARNS BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE.

The aggregate amount of our demand is two hundred and sixty-six thousand dollars. The first item is for one hundred thousand dollars, for the erection of a large building for the library, museum, and Secretary's office. As far as regards the exterior of this building you can make that as plain as possible--all we ask is that the interior accommodations be such as will be suitable.

The second item is ten thousand dollars, for an auditorium and drill-room.

The Senate committee object to go to that expense, and propose to have it in the basement of the building spoken of in the first item. It is also proposed to rough-finish the attics, and utilize them for

museums and other purposes, with which arrangement we are perfectly satisfied.

The third item is forty-thousand dollars, for the erection of a plain, substantial building for the departments of mechanics and mining. The closest kind of estimate brings it to thirty-five thousand dollars. The lower part of that building not to be finished in the inside, the floor timbers are to be heavy timbers, so that gearing, machinery, etc., can be attached.

The other items do not come within this committee's scope. The sixty-six thousand dollars we ask for is to meet the deficiencies between the current expenses of the University and its income. Our income is ninety-five thousand dollars a year-fifty thousand dollars derived from the sale of swamp lands, and forty-five thousand dollars from the National Government from the sale of agricultural lands. The sale of these lands is not yet completed, but we receive the interest on the purchase price of them, which amounts to forty-five thousand dollars a year.

The whole is contained in our biennial report. With regard to the agricultural grounds, the Senate committee did not seem disposed to consider that favorably.

To Mr. Bagge-The University succeeded to the rights of the California College in a certain portion of a ranch then not divided. They had an undivided interest in the ranch, but no partition had been made. There were springs of water which the University used on said ranch. The University's undivided interest was conveyed to Mrs. Brayton for certain property in Oakland. She subsequently sold that interest to outside persons. The University still continues to use the water, and nothing has been said against it. The University owns an absolute right to the water of the Heywood Springs, to which it is entitled as successor of the College. We ask for twenty-two thousand dollars ($22,000) to convey that water to the building.

To Mr. Clunie-The land was sold by authority of the Regents, acting under authority of law.

E

REPORT

ON THE

STATE PRISON

STATE PRISON AND PRISON BUILDING COMMITTEE.

REPORT.

To the Honorable Senate of the State of California :

Mr. PRESIDENT: The Joint State Prison Committee of the Senate and Assembly most respectfully beg leave to submit for your honorable consideration the following report, as the result of its deliberations upon the important matters confided to its charge:

In compliance with law, we visited the State Prison at San Quentin, situate in Marin County, and distant about one hundred and thirty miles from the State Capitol, at Sacramento. Our inspection covered the various departments connected with and about the penitentiary, as well as the hearing of applicants for the commutation of sentences, together with all other matters appertaining thereto as we thought came within our province, and our duty required of us. On Saturday, January twenty-second, your committee assembled at the State Prison, the following members being present: Shirley, Tuttle, McGarvey, Craig, Nunan, Martin, Angney, and Turner, visiting member.

We proceeded to an investigation of the condition of affairs in and about the penitentiary, in about the following order of procedure:

REAL ESTATE OWNED BY THE PRISON.

The prison owns one hundred and forty-six acres of land, extending from tide-water on the south to the summit of the range. Within the boundaries, and lying close to the margin of the waters of the bay, is the inclosure embracing prison grounds proper, inclosing six

acres.

PRISON WALL.

The wall, within which the cells and workshops are inclosed, we found in many places to be in a rapid state of decay, and requiring immediate repairs. Having originally been built of brick made with salt water, and not then of a first-class quality, it has failed to resist the elements, until now its south side is in a dilapidated and very badly damaged state of decay. To prevent the further demolition of these walls, the Board of Directors should devise some means for arresting further deterioration, either by the application of a preparation of asphaltum or cement, in places where the walls are in the best state of preservation, and its reconstruction in its weakest points.

1,152

212,840

184.7 540.2

Between the two-story building now occupied by Messrs. Stone & Haydon and the three stone and brick structures devoted to the confinement of convicts, stands a large four and one-half story brick building, two hundred and fifty-eight feet in length by sixty feet in width, running at right angles with the prison buildings, and is occupied principally as a manufactory of furniture by the California Furniture Manufacturing Company. In the south end of this building, on the ground floor, is located the engine which propels (free of charge, contractors furnishing fuel,) all the machinery of the different industrial departments overhead, which constitute the furniture and boot and shoe departments.

TANNERY, HARNESS, AND BLACKSMITH SHOPS.

In the southwesterly portion of the lower yard is located the tannery and harness department, in a building two stories high, which presents anything but a substantial appearance from the outside. Messrs. Stone & Haydon, harness makers, employ by contract at the present time one hundred and twenty-five men—the number of men employed varying in accordance with the press of work. The top floor is devoted to the manufactory of saddlery of all kinds, and the skill displayed in covering and finishing saddle-trees by the Chinese and Indian workmen is particularly noticeable.

The harness department on the same floor is well filled with busy and industrious workmen of all nationalities. Many of these workmen are exceedingly clever in their workmanship and accumulate quite a little amount per annum by extra work. Under the supervision of the foreman, they appear to be kindly treated and as well satisfied with their unfortunate lot as it is possible to be. The ground floor is taken up with the blacksmith department and turning-shop for the moulding of saddle-trees. The tannery is situated south and adjoining the building, and furnishes the material used in the saddlery, harness, and boot and shoe departments.

The kitchen in which food for the prisoners is prepared is on the lower floor of the manufacturing building, only separated from its south wall by the small saw-mill department of the California Furniture Company. Its size fails to meet the demand upon it of late years, owing to the steady increase of prison inmates, and at the present it requires the use of the best judgment in the baking department to be able to supply the daily demand for bread. Another oven is absolutely necessary to be used in conjunction with the present one, which is not in a condition to last much longer without repairing. Its capacity is very much overtaxed, to say nothing of, its liability to fall in any day, in which event it would leave matters in a very unpleasant condition, as one can readily see that the stop