goes on further with regard to a subject which I contend special attention should be directed to.

-"subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure compliance with the terms of its endowments.'

Now, I am fully convinced that this is wrong. There is to be no legislative control in this matter; none except what is necessary to insure compliance with the terms of its endowments, and of the several Acts of the Legislature of this State. These Acts have already been passed, and now here there is a restriction placed upon the Legislature that it shall have no further control except to confirm these Acts; nothing else; excluded from all further investigation of the affairs of this institution. Now, it is a matter of the most serious consequence that we should take into consideration whether we shall have this institution on such a basis. Although the present officers may be just, and true, and good, we do not know that it will always have such, and if there is not a word to say: against it at this time, we do not know but at some future time it may be highly important to investigate the affairs of that body. Now, to give up control in these respects, and say that the Regents have conducted it all right, and for the future it will be the same, I am under the impression that it would be unjust to the people of this State. We should not restrict the Legislature in this respect. I might go on with arguments to show that this clause forbids legislation, except so far as to confirm the endowments and the Acts of the Legislature which have been passed. Do we wish to have the Legislature forbidden to take any action with regard to this body in the line of investigation of its conduct? I am sure that a majority of the members here do not wish it, and I am opposed to the section.

REMARKS OF MR. SHAFTER.

MR. SHAFTER. Mr. Chairman: It seems to me that this is a most extraordinary controversy. In the first place insinuations are made against these Regents, as to how they have managed the trust which has been placed in their hands, and when they get up here and explain the manner in which that trust has been managed, gentlemen say that they are nervous; and instead of defending the policy of the section they are undertaking to defend themselves. They are required to be silent when they are charged with mismanagement. Why do not these gentlemen specify in what they have been dishonest? If they have stolen anything, why do not these persons indicate where and when? There has been but one specific charge, and that was by Mr. Barton, who speaks of a report of a committee of the Legislature. I do not recollect the terms of that report exactly, but at the time I read it over and made up my mind that it was all bosh. It was because the contractor putting up the building did not put in the right sized timber. He did not complete all the provisions of his contract. No fault of the Regents was demonstrated by that report, according to my recollection. The amendment which is proposed by the gentleman from Alameda, as the gentleman from Los Angeles has correctly stated, would give Congress a chance to nullify the grant. This grant must be used for the purposes for which it was donated, and the action of the Legislature and of the Regents has not been in violation of the Act making the donation.. This trust must be administered according to the terms of the grant itself. The Act of Congress has been read here repeatedly. While agriculture, very likely, is put forward as one of the more important elements, it is just as distinctly specified that the others shall not be excluded. The amendment offered by Mr. Webster is to exclude the others, and is therefore in direct conflict with the terms with the grant of Congress.

MR. STUART. Mr. Chairman: I am sorry to see the opposition that is made to this tenth section, and against the University, by the farmers on this floor-by many of them, at least. I approve of the report of the committee generally, and will stand by it, and I hope the Convention will carry it out. A few words first, in regard to the education of our children. The gentleman from Los Angeles, Mr. West, I believe, said that the studies had been placed on a higher plane than they had intended to go. I think he is mistaker, because it is well known that four or five years ago-about the time the University moved into its term in the Agricultural College. I know, for among them was my son. I also had him placed in the Mechanic Arts College, besides other branches of learning. It was hard to find enough scholars to form a class in the Agricultural College, for the reason, I suppose, that the farmers are just as apt to want to educate their sons in the professional walks as any other class. Whatever studies they choose they can take. I have been greatly surprised at the position taken here by the Workingmen and farmers upon this subject. This is an educational institution, where all farmers' sons, all poor men's sons, are taught without cost or charge; an institution that any man may attend by simply having enough to bear his personal expenses during the time. The legal and financial standing of the institution has already been explained by those who know more about it than I do. I could name a number of eminent men who have sent their sons to this institution, and they have come forth endowed with a brilliant education, and thoroughly fitted to buffet with the world. The youngest member of this body is a graduate of that institution, and stands to-day an honor to his preceptors, and one of the brightest intellects on this floor. I have no doubt in saying that. These graduates are scattered all over the State. They do not come from the cities altogether, nor are they confined to rich men's sons. They are workers, engaged in the various pursuits of life. They receive practical instruction, which is of use to them in making a living. I believe that is all I have to say, or need to say. There are other and more able gentlemen who desire to make remarks on this subject. MR. WINANS. Mr. Chairman: I ask that the amendment reported by the committee be accepted as a part of the report. THE CHAIRMAN. It can only be accepted as a recommendation.

Now, the gentleman from Tulare seems to think that this section deprives the Legislature of all power of control over this Board of Regents. I understand this first clause of the section simply to perpet-present quarters-there were but four or five students during the whole uate the form and continue the Regents as a body in force and in power. Now I wish to know what gentlemen wish to point out. Are you going to have the Legislature appoint a committee to regulate it? What are they but Regents under a different name? If it is a specific body appointed a specific authority, what is better than the Regents? Why the gentlemen are entirely silent upon that question. They do not point to anybody else. Is it not apparent on the face of it that there has got to be somebody? Then what is the difference whether you call them Directors, Trustees, Committee, or Regents? I cannot see. "That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." They wish even to change the appointing power. What is the reason why we should take it from the Governor? I cannot see any propriety in it. Now, as to the subject of legislative control. The section says that it shall be subject to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure compliance with the terms of its endowments. What does control mean-advice? I understand the word control to be mandatory. It is the right to direct. The Legislature, then, has the right to control and direct this institution so as to insure compliance with the terms of its endowments, and to insure compliance with the several Acts of the Legislature of this State, and with the Congress of the United States. Does not this section allow the Legislature to judge what shall be necessary to insure compliance with the terms of the endowments? They have the right to enforce it. If the Regents undertook to take this land and misappropriate it, the Legislature has the right to prevent their doing it. I cannot see the slightest objection to it. The language is as good as it possibly can be. I hope this will be maintained as it is. One trouble is that the farmers do not want to educate their sons to their own business. When the truth is known they are ashamed of their business, when they ought to be ashamed of their own false pride. It is true that you cannot make farmers simply upon theoretical instruction alone. But you can teach many things that would be useful in that pursuit. I hope the section will stand.

MR. STUART. Mr. Chairman: I am sorry to see the course the farmers are taking upon this subject. I am in favor of the section as reported by the committee. I was going to say something, but as the hour for

SPEECH OF MR. JOHNSON.

MR. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman: There are many things to be considered in connection with section ten and the proposed amendments. We know, as a matter of fact, that the University of California has been of slow growth, and that it has been owing to the fostering influences and donations which it has received from this State and from the Gen

I ask the gentleman from Alameda, why should we seek to apply the iconaclastic hand to such an institution as the University of California? It has grown up under the benign influence of the donations from the people of this State and from the Congress of the United States, together with the liberal funds given to it by the College of California. Look across the bay at her sisters. There she sits, the bride of the Pacific, her foot touching the waters, and her head resting upon the foothills of the Contra Costa range. Her outlook is over the islands and the Golden Gate of commerce for the Pacific Coast. With such surroundings, to which may be added a most salubrious climate and inviting shade, we are forcibly reminded of Milton's description of the gardens of Pluto, where "the attic bird trills her thick-warbled notes the Summer long."

eral Government, that it has risen to its present proud position. We the congressional legislation, which says in effect that the education have many older institutions of learning in this country, they too have provided for shall be in the several pursuits and professions of life. attained their status and reputation by reason of munificent donations Therefore, sir, I say that it is in direct conflict with the Act of Congress. from the patrons of education. There is Dartmouth College, for instance.I say, also, that it is in violation of the obligation of contracts; that it That institution stood by its rights, those rights which it had acquired stands upon the same plane as the Dartmouth College case, and that if from and under its colonial charter. It was compelled to resort to litiga-passed, it will encounter the same opposition and the same decision. tion to maintain those rights, and when the Supreme Court of the United States passed upon the question, they said the attempt to interfere with the institution in that way was a violation of the Constitution, in that it was impairing the obligation of a contract. The then little institution, by dint of perseverance and the aid of friends of education, was thus enabled finally to place herself upon a secure and imperishable foundation. So other institutions have grown up by eleemosynary aid, until they became strong in development, and were recognized and inspired confidence as established and permanent institutions. Men when dying, when leaving their last legacies and bequests, have often coupled with them a legacy for some institution of learning; but, sir, this, as prudent men, they would never have done had they believed that the institution was on an insecure foundation, and the means which they had acquired with so much toil and unrest would, after their death, be scattered to In spite of all this, shall we do away with this thrice-fostered instituthe four winds. Believing that the institution was firmly established tion and dismantle her walls? Shall we compel our farmers to pay they were willing to place it on a still more solid foundation; and I tell tribute to other colleges outside of this State, and send thence their you, sir, that if you cripple the University of California, in the way now children to acquire a liberal education, which, but for our hostile acts, proposed, it will have a powerful effect upon this class who have a dis- might as well have been acquired at home? The effect of it will be to position to endow the institution with a portion of their abundant wealth. take a large amount of means from this State and send it to other States, If they believe that the University will be permanently changed, that and change a now liberal and satisfactory curriculum of study into an the funds will be squandered and segregated, that the institution will agricultural specialty. stand upon a questionable foundation, they will not endow it and then Aside from the law of the case, I appeal to the State pride of the gencontemplate the dissipation of their own fortunes in a vain endeavor.tleman from Alameda, aye, more, to his home pride; for the institution Nothing that we could do would be so hurtful to the growth and progress whose claims I am now advocating is located in his own county. of the University, nothing so suicidal as to lessen the public confidence It appears to me to be unwise to antagonize Congressional legislation in the stability and permanence of the institution. These donations, on this subject. The Legislature would have to interpret the provision these endowments for specific purposes, are in the nature of a contract which we may adopt. Would they pass laws to carry out if they knew which cannot be violated without going contrary to the decisions of the it was unconstitutional? that it was in conflict with Congressional legishighest Court in the land, and that is precisely what the amendment lation? They have repeatedly refused to go contrary to the laws of offered by Mr. Webster does. Congress, and they are entitled to a great deal of credit for so doing. Again, it has no merit whatever, over and above the section reported Shall we ask the Legislature to undo what they have already done in by the committee. In the first place, the Webster amendment proposes giving unity of design, and providing for a liberal course of study in the segregation of the University funds, the Agricultural fund from the the University of California? Shall we annul, or try to annul, the other funds. Is there anything in the Act of Congress to warrant that Congressional Act? and, lastly, shall we do violence to those men segregation? I challenge it as antagonistic to the Act of Congress. There who have made their bequests, and died in the hope that this instiis placed in this amendment a clause segregating these funds, when tution was to remain an established entity, and intact in this State? there is no such segregation authorized by the Act of Congress, either Now, sir, I have no fight to make with agriculture in this State, nor directly or by implication. have I any fight to make with labor in this State. I think, generally, I now read from section four, article nine, of the present Constitution: my sympathies have run in the direction of both; but, sir, I am not in "The Legislature shall take measures for the protection, improvement, favor of experimental legislation, or an experimental constitutional or other disposition of such lands as have been or may hereafter be provision, which is in direct conflict with the Act of Congress, the genreserved or granted by the United States, or any person or persons, toeral sentiment of our people, and seeks to build up foreign institutions this State, for the use of a University; and the funds accruing from the of learning at the expense of our cherished University. rents or sale of such lands, or from any other source, for the purpose aforesaid, shall be and remain a permanent fund, the interest on which shall be applied to the support of said University, with such branches as the public convenience may demand, for the promotion of literature, the arts and sciences, as may be authorized by the terms of such grant. And it shall be the duty of the Legislature, as soon as may be, to provide effectual means for the improvement and permanent security of the funds of said University."

Pass the Webster amendment, and after the great wrong shall have been done, it will be too late to try to remedy the evil. After the funds shall have been segregated, and the present colleges shall have merged into a college of agriculture, the public confidence will be gone and will never crystallize again around any institution of learning in this State. This cannot be done with my vote. Amid the ruins I should feel as guilty as the man who fired the temple at Ephesus. I do not attack the motives of the opposition, and only hope to succeed in showing them that their position is ill-advised.

So far as the Regents are concerned, there is some idle clamor against them. Some of these men have records in this State. Those who have been associated with that Regency will bear witness to what I say, that these aspersions are a gross injustice to the memory of the dead, and as for those who are living, it is not for me to defend them when they are so amply able to represent themselves. But I will simply say that this cry against them is mere idle clamor, which cannot be substantiated by the facts. Sir, I admit that iconoclasm is sometimes right, when some Sir, the framers of this Constitution, whose seats we now occupy, mouldy moss-grown wrong is to be removed out of the pathway of prowhen they incorporated that provision into the Constitution, had the gress. This is something else. It is an institution built up by domestic idea of a University, with a permanent, indestructible fund. That was and national generosity, which has diffused and is still diffusing a broad the object of this provision in the Constitution. This provision ante- and general culture throughout the State. Aside from what nature has dates the congressional legislation in respect to this fund. The congresso liberally given us, it is nearly all that we have to be proud of as Calsional Act was passed in eighteen hundred and sixty-two, but as early ifornians. as the adoption of our present Constitution and its ratification by the people, it is apparent that the framers of it and the people who voted for it, thought there ought to be a permanent University, with a permanent fund. Now, sir, I have referred to only one of the cardinal principles of departure contained in the Webster amendment, the segregation of the funds. I will now cite another, which is equally alarming, which is the superseding of the broad, general culture contemplated by the Act of Congress, by an agricultural school. I will read only so much of the Act of Congress as relates to this particular subject which I am now con- Why, sir, the Act of Congress gives no possible excuse for such a prosidering. The leading subject shall be, without excluding other scien-vision as the Webster amendment. It says there shall be at least one tific and classical studies," and if you do not exclude them, you must college, and that the leading object shall be those studies which relate include them; if you have no power to exclude, you must necessarily to agriculture and the mechanic arts. You may have more than one include, "the teaching of such branches as are related to agriculture," college then, may you not? If you have several colleges the Act does not simply agriculture, but such branches as are related to agriculture, not say that the leading object shall be the same in all of them. I "in such manner as the Legislatures of the States may respectively pre- therefore humbly submit that the section, with the amendment of the scribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the gentleman from Los Angeles, is all that is required, and nothing else industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life." should be adopted. I want no son of mine to have the bitter reflection This education is not to be in one pursuit or profession of life, but in that it was his father who attempted to destroy this great institution. the several pursuits and professions of life. It is to be both liberal and practical. Now, in looking over the provisions of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Alameda, I do not see that he has provided for this liberal education. I think he has signally failed to include those other scientific and classical studies contemplated by the Act of Congress. I think he has ignored the several pursuits and professions of life, and confined his attention exclusively to one department-the department of agriculture.

[At this point in the speaker's remarks the gavel fell.]

ME. SMITH, of Santa Clara. I will give the gentleman my time.
THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will then proceed.
MR. JOHNSON. I thank the gentleman from Santa Clara for his
courtesy. I have but a few words more to say. The gentleman from
Alameda has eliminated from his amendment the cardinal principle of

REMARKS OF MR. ANDREWS.

MR. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman: I cannot indorse the report of the committee, neither does the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alameda entirely meet my views. I believe the question is in such a position at this time that no amendment can be accepted. I have drawn a section which comes nearer meeting my views in relation to what the Constitution should contain, than the amendment of the gentleman from Alameda. I will read it for information:

"SEC. 10. The Legislature shall take measures to preserve the funds which have accrued or may accrue from the disposition of such lands as have been or may hereafter be reserved or granted by the United States for a college for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts;' and the funds accrued or accruing from the rents or sale of such lands, for

Lost.

MR. WINANS. I move that the committee now rise, report back the
article to the Convention, and recommend its adoption as amended.
Lost-aves, 47.

MR. AYERS. Mr. Chairman: I offer an amendment.
THE SECRETARY read:

THE CHAIRMAN. The question is: Shall the main question be now Carr. I call your attention to the sworn testimony of that gentleman put? on page thirty-four of the report, wherein he refutes that statement. Carried. Again, on another page, in answer to a question as to whether he had THE CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gen- found the yeomanry friendly to the University or not, he answered that deman from San Francisco, Mr. Grace. he had never found anything to the contrary. Hence I am satisfied that much of this clamor has arisen from a misconception of the facts. Now, I am opposed to section ten. Now, it is the privilege and the duty of members to offer suggestions and amendments, but amendments should not be offered or clung to unless they are intended to accomplish some good purpose. There should be no pride of opinion. Now, it is not that my amendment or your amendment, my course or your course, should be adopted, but what is best for this institution, what is best for the whole State? That is the question that is before us now. Now, it has been said by one member here, that they feared the cutting off of these bequests, and that if this section was not passed the Legislature would have power in some way to divert or misapply these donations. Hence, they desire to place the institution upon a firm foundation, so that some mere passing, temporary excitement will not remove or destroy it, together with the monuments of those who have gone from earth and left the labor of years to endow this institution. This, of course, is proper, because no man desires to leave a legacy to an institution unless he can be assured that it will stand amid changing times, long after his own bones are crumbling into dust. I do not believe the section, as reported, will accomplish the result aimed at, because it seems to me you place it in bands of iron, so that it can never grow or expand: so that she can never become greater; so that an additional college could never be added. Hence, I have drafted a substitute and I will trouble. the Convention by reading it:

"SEC. 10. The University of California shall constitute a public trust, and its organization and government shall be subject to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure compliance with the terms of its endowments, and of the several Acts of the Congress of the United States, donating lands or money for its support. It shall be entirely Edependent of all political or sectarian influences, and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its Regents, and in the administration of its affairs."

REMARKS OF MR. AYERS.

MR. AYERS. Mr. Chairman: It will be seen that I have eliminated most of the objectionable features from the section as reported by the mmittee, and I offer this as a compromise measure. I have stricken at the part which perpetuates the character and form of the present Organization, and the Board of Regents, by implication, conforming to the legislation on this subject heretofore passed. Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of this discussion I must confess that I was imbued to some extent with the prevalent prejudice against the management, or rather the manner in which the University was carried out by the Board of Regents, as a trust. But with the discussion upon this floor, with the remarks of gentlemen who are connected with that institution, and who know all of its inside workings, I am satisfied that a great deal of the clamor and prejudice existing is unfounded. But at the same time this lebate has brought me to the conclusion that it would not be well for this State to set up the University as a close corporation, one which would not be sufficiently controlled by the authority of the State, and iny amendment, if it should be acceptable to the committee, I think will strike out those portions which have raised so much opposition, and leave that institution entirely controllable and amenable to the authority of the State. I think if gentlemen will consider my amendment they will see that it is just what is needed.

SPEECH OF MR. LAINE.

MR. LAINE. Mr. Chairman: I take it for granted that it is unnecsary for any one to speak in regard to the advantages that flow from lucation. We are all convinced in regard to that matter. I am satisfied there is no gentleman upon this floor who desires to antagonize the Taiversity of California. Most of the members of this Convention are ld Californians. They are proud of her name and proud of her hisDry, and the name of this University alone would endear her to all of who have grown up here, and we all desire to make this institution an ornament to this State. But we must ever remember that no instiation can flourish unless it be fostered. We cannot shut our eyes to the proposition that popular sovereignty has the control of this measure. Make the University of California popular, and from one end of this State to the other let a finger be raised against her prosperity, and that individual will be at once denounced. Now, we are all desirous, I have no doubt, of making a good institution. We desire to see her rise from her recumbent position into proud and lofty station. We want to weber take her feet from the waves of the bay, and her head from the lls, and stand erect, the proud and glorious institution of this glorious State. We desire to see her pouring forth an unbroken stream of youth n this land, armed with an education that they dare advance to the attle of life, as with an armor of iron and steel. We all know that in the battle of life an education is better than sword or shield. Now, we know that there will always be attempts made to traduce the parties who manage public institutions, in any land and in any country, and there will be a feeling among people that something is wrong, even Lough they can give no reasons to justify it. And I am satisfied there as been a feeling throughout the length and breadth of this State that something was wrong about this institution, and none can tell why. And the legislation which we are attempting to enact, and the conditions aced here, will have a tendency to keep up that feeling of dislike wards the institution. Now, we should in all things so frame this Art that justice will be done, and that this suspicion would not thereby strengthened. It is not necessary to stir up embittered feeling. These men are officers of the State, and they are liable at any day to be alled on to give an account of their stewardship. These men are ut human, and are liable to make blunders like the rest of us. But all things, as far as my observation has gone, I believe they have bored for the best interests of the people of this State. Why, do you nk there is no pride in the human heart that it should want to be nnected with a failure? The members of this Convention would not want it to go forth to the world that we had failed in our efforts here. Now, it became my duty, as a member of the Legislature, to investigate his matter-in the Legislature of eighteen hundred and seventy-three four. The report of our proceedings can be found in the Journal of the Senate and Assembly of that session. It was a joint committee, and we went to the University. We brought before us those who were lamoring against the administration, and we made just as thorough an vestigation as our time would allow, and the conclusion which the ramittee arrived at was that the Regents had done well, considering things; that they deserved the sympathy and support of the people large for their management of the University. That was our judgnent after deliberate examination. Something has been said in the argument here about charges made against the Regents by Professor

"The University of California is hereby declared to be a perpetual institution of this State, organized to administer a great public trust, and the Legislature shall have no power to impair or divert any gift, grant, or donation made to it, from the purposes or objects of those making such gift, grant, or donation; its officers shall hold office for such time as the Legislature may prescribe. Instructions shall be therein given, in addition to other matters, in agriculture, metallurgy, the mechanic arts and applied science; it shall be entirely independent of all political and sectarian influences."

They have a number of colleges now. By the tenth section they can never have any more, because there never can be any change. In order to meet the difficulties which I can see will arise if the tenth section is adopted, I offer this as a substitute.

REMARKS OF MR. BARTON.

MR. BARTON. Mr. Chairman: I rise for the purpose of refuting, if possible, as far as I am concerned, the charge that the farmers of this State, especially the farmers in this Convention are opposed to the educational interest in this State, and especially that of the University of California. As for me, having lived in this State over a quarter of a century, coming here as I did when we had but a few sparse mission schools, there is no man in the State of California who has watched the practical progress of education more than I myself, and therefore I deny that the charge has any foundation. The country elements in this State to-day are the very ones, more than any other, that are desirous of seeing the onward march of progress and education. It is not my desire to make a rehash of anything that has been said, but inasmuch as I am charged with having broached the subject, I cannot, and will not, with the permission of the Convention, sit still and see the matter whitewashed, without rising to refute it. In regard to the tenth section now being considered by this body, I desire to say that it does not meet with the approval of the farming element here, for the reason that it takes the matter out of the hands of the people, the proper and correct persons to whom these Regents should be responsible. That is my objection to the tenth section. In regard to the statement made by the gentleman from Santa Clara, in regard to the investigation made by the Joint Commission of eighteen hundred and seventy-three-four, I would inform this Convention that the committee was so surprised, and believed that they had been appointed and created for the purpose of forestalling the action of the committee of the lower branch of the Legislature, which was investigating the Board of Regents, in which business it had been engaged for a number of days, perhaps two weeks, before the appointment of this joint committee. When we had been at work some days, we were informed by the papers that there was a joint committee appointed, and that it would be in San Francisco the following day. It came there. The first intimation we had of it officially was a note received from the Chairman of the committee, asking us to join them in a joint investigation of the Board of Regents and the affairs of the University, after we had been investigating some days, perhaps two weeks, ourselves. Our reply was that inasmuch as we had been investigating already, it would be impossible for us then to retrace our steps and enter into a general investigation with them. And I know what I say when I assert that the joint committee had not time to make an investigation of the books, records, and documents of the Board of Regents, because during the four or five weeks of our investigation there was no possible show for these books to have passed out of our hands, because they were actually in our possession.

MR. REED. I will ask the gentleman if the two committees were not upon different subjects-one upon public buildings, and the other upon the management of the University?

MR. BARTON. Yes, sir; perhaps that is correct. However, I want it distinctly understood that I am not desirous of waging any war against the public educational institutions of this State. All I want is that these men shall be held responsible to the people. They have the right to always control it, and I do not want to pass a section that will place it beyond their control.

SPEECH OF MR. VAN DYKE.

MR. VAN DYKE. Mr. Chairman: I am glad to see good feeling

liens, and obligations for the improvement of such homestead, and for
debts incurred before the adoption of this Constitution. And in case of
the death of the husband and wife, the surviving member or members
of the family, if any, shall succeed to the title and possession of such
homestead, with the like exemption herein prescribed in favor of such
head of family. And the Legislature shall, by general law, not incon-
sistent with this section, effectually secure the benefits of such home-
stead exemption.
MR. ROLFE. Mr. Chairman: I offer a substitute.
THE SECRETARY read:

"The Legislature shall protect by law from forced sale a certain por-
tion of the homestead and other property of all heads of families."
MR. WILSON, of First District. I move to add to the section: "Pro-
vided, that nothing herein contained shall impair any homestead right
existing at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
MR. ROLFE. Mr. Chairman: I call attention to the fact that the
substitute which I offer is word for word the same as the old Constitu-
tion. It is section fifteen of article eleven. Now, under that provision
I do not know of any injustice or wrong that has ever been done. The
Legislature, at one time or another, has always provided exemptions
from forced sale for the homestead and certain other property.
have always had very good homestead laws in the Constitution, and in
the Codes. The Constitution says what we shall have, and the Legisla-
ture carries out the details. Now, when it has stood the test for twenty-
nine years, I see no reason for changing it.

We

prevailing in reference to the University. The objections of gentlemen seem to be not so much to the management of the Board of Regents as to the Acts of the Legislature in carrying out the Act of Congress. Now, sir, I think the Legislature of this State has, not only in spirit, but in letter, carried out the Act of Congress in regard to these donations; and I think, further, that the Regents of the University, in acting under the several Acts of the Legislature, are entitled to credit, and to the thanks of the people of this State for the manner in which they have, so far, managed the donations of Congress. And I remark here, further, that Congress itself has indorsed the action of the State Legislature in its manner of treating this fund, for the reason that Congress recently passed an Act allowing the Regents of the State University to locate lands embraced in the grant, upon unsurveyed lands, and to ask a price not exceeding five dollars an acre. What is the result? It at once made them preferred lands, and the Regents of the University have realized from that grant about five dollars an acre on the average, whereas, in the other States they only realized about one doliar per acre in currency, whereas our Board realized five dollars per acre in gold coin. And I say that Congress, by that Act, virtually recognized and approved the Acts of the State of California in carrying out that grant. I say, therefore. that the Regents have done well, and are entitled to the thanks of the people of California. Now, sir, I am opposed to any project that seeks to divide or impair this fund, because if that is done it will have the same effect as dividing and impairing the common school fund, and it would weaken and destroy the State University. It will destroy confidence in it, and this is an institution that cannot exist without the confidence of the community, because these great institutions of learning must depend for support upon endowments, in a great measure. I was reading some time ago an account of the great Universities of the country, and the amount of property they own. The Harvard University stands first in rank as to wealth, having over six million dollars. Of all that vast fund belonging to that college, only about two hundred and sixteen thousand dollars came from the State of Massachusetts, and the rest of this immense sum came from private endowments. Now, that will be the case in reference to the University of California if it is allowed to be placed upon a firm foundation. These bequests will not be made so long as it is subject to change by the Legislature. Fix it permanently in the organic law, and there will be complete confidence, such as the older institutions of the country enjoy, and it will be the recipient of frequent and generous endowments. It is known that the late Michael Reese in his first will, had proposed to give to the University two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Why did he change that will? Why, because the Legislature attempted to make a raid upon the University, and the very fact that this assault was made, weakened his confidence ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEENTH DAY. in the permanency of the institution, and he modified his will. not wish to place it beyond legislative control. No one desires that. We are willing that it shall be under legislative control, the same as Harvard and other Universities are, but we do not want the Legisla ture to have power to destroy it or impair its usefulness. made permanent in order to enjoy the public confidence.

THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.

We do

It must be

MR. TINNIN. I move the previous question.
Seconded by Messrs. Wyatt, Lindow, Van Voorhies, and White.
THE CHAIRMAN. The question is: Shall the main question be now
put.

Carried-ayes, 59; noes, 27.

THE CHAIRMAN. The first question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Santa Clara, Mr. Laine.

Division being called for, the amendment was adopted, by a vote of 68 ayes to 49 noes.

MR. MORELAND (aye), paired with Mr. Campbell (no).
THE CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the amendment as amended.
Adopted.

MR. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman: I move that the committee rise.
report back the article to the Convention, and recommend its adoption
as amended.
Carried.

IN CONVENTION.

MR. LAINE. Mr. Chairman: As this is a matter of considerable importance, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Carried.

IN CONVENTION.

instructed me to report that they have had under consideration the report of the Committee on Land and Homestead Exemption, have made progress, and ask leave to sit again.

THE PRESIDENT. Gentlemen: The Committee of the Whole have

ADJOURNMENT.

MR. MCFARLAND. I move the Convention do now adjourn.
Carried.

And at four o'clock P. M. the Convention stood adjourned until to-morrow morning at nine o'clock and thirty minutes.

SACRAMENTO, Thursday, January 23d, 1879.

The Convention met in regular session at nine o'clock and thirty minutes A. M., President Hoge in the chair.

The roll was called, and members found in attendance as follows:

PRESENT.

THE PRESIDENT. Gentlemen: The Committee of the Whole have instructed me to report, that they have had under consideration the report of the Committee on Education, have adopted sundry amendments thereto, and recommend its adoption as amended.

Caples,
Casserly,
Chapman,
Charles,
Condon,

Lavigne,

Lewis,

Lindow,

Mansfield,

Davis,
Dean,

Martin, of Alameda,

Swenson,

Swing,

Thompson,

Martin, of Santa Cruz, Tinnin.

MR. WINANS. I move that the report be ordered printed.
So ordered.

MR. SHOEMAKER. I move that the Convention do now adjourn.
Lost.

Townsend,

Tully,

Turner,

MR. INMAN. I move that we take up the bill of rights in Convention.

LAND AND HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.

MR. LARKIN. Mr. President: I move that the Convention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering the report of the Committee on Land and Homestead Exemption. Carried.

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

Neunaber,

Ohleyer,
O'Sullivan,

Overton,

Hale,
Harrison,
Harvey,
Herold,
Herrington,
Prouty,
Hitchcock,
Pulliam,
Holmes,
Reddy,
Howard,of Los Angeles, Reed,

THE SECRETARY read the section reported by the committee: SEC. Hereafter the homestead, consisting of the family dwellinghouse, outbuildings, improvements, and lands appurtenant thereto, of each head of a family resident in this State, of the value not exceeding Heiskell, five thousand dollars, shall not be alienated or incumbered, except by the consent, in manner to be prescribed by law, of both husband and wife where that relation exists, and such homestead shall be exempt from seizure or sale for the payment of any debt or liability, except for the purchase-money and the payment of taxes, laborers' and mechanics'

Evey.
Farrell,

Mills,
Moffat,
Moreland,
Morse,
Murphy,
Nason,
Nelson,

McCoy,
McFarland,

McNutt,