Q.-Did not the Board of Equalization conclude to raise it four hundred thousand dollars more?

A. There was a complaint filed the same as the railroad assessment, but it was not ventilated by the Board. If it was, my opinion is they would have reduced it. So they were not raised. Q. How did you come to fall so far short?

A. In the assessment roll of eighteen hundred and seventy-six the aggregate value of land was about six million dollars, but the Board of Equalization reduced four hundred and fifty thousand dollars to five hundred thousand dollars, principally on Haggin's and railroad lands. I assessed railroads but witnesses were brought to swear that the lands were not worth as much as assessed. In eighteen hundred and seventy-six did not know the quality of land and was unacquainted with them, so had to submit to estimate of owners. I averaged the railroad lands.

Q.-Did you examine any of this land?

A.—I was acquainted with some of it; done very little of that work myself; left it to deputies.

Q-How much of your time are you in Kern County?

A.-I am there four months on official duty and some months besides; I do not spend the most of my time in San Francisco.

Q. In making your assessment of the County of Kern, in eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, did you not travel over the county, using a wagon and mare belonging to J. B. Haggin, or to Dr. Thornton, his Superintendent?

A.-I used Dr. Thorton's mare and buckboard for three weeks, and had to wait ten days to get it. My salary is only one thousand five hundred dollars a year, and out of that I cannot afford to pay for the hire of a horse and wagon. As to my relations with Haggin, I have none; I do not like the man, and consider him one of the coldest hearted men in the world.

Q. Has not Mr. Haggin now on his ranch a large amount of hay, grain, and fodder?

A. Yes, sir; but do not know how much, nor its value. Q-Had he not a large quantity of hay, grain, feed, and fodder on hand on the ranches, in eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, when you made the assessment?

A.-No, sir; there was no return made; do not know whether it was assessed; have no recollection of its value.

Q-At what rate per mile did you assess the track of the Southern Pacific Railroad?

A.-Six thousand dollars; I arrived at the valuation by the uniform rate of counties adjoining, from Joaquin to the Yuma.

Q. Did not the Board of Equalization raise the assessment from six thousand dollars to eight thousand dollars per mile? A. Yes, sir.

A. Yes, sir.

Q-Has not the company paid its taxes on this last valuation? A. Yes, sir.

Q-How did you come to make so great a mistake as to its value? A. The statement was given under oath by the railroad company's agent. Along the road where there are improvements that cost considerable, they are not worth the lumber in the buildings. When it came before the Board of Equalization, the railroad attorney offered to place the value of improvements at near what they cost. The attorney thought six thousand dollars per mile was sufficient for all. Was satisfied myself the figure was not sufficient. Q. Did you not omit to assess to railroad company a number of lots in Sumner?

A.—No, sir. They gave the valuation at five thousand five hundred dollars. I graded in accordance with other lands, and raised it to twenty-four thousand dollars. After fixing valuation of lots belonging to individuals I graded theirs.

Q-Were not these lots added to the assessment roll by the Board of Equalization and at a value of two thousand one hundred and thirty dollars?

A.-No, sir. The slip called Reservation, where there are side tracks, was included in the assessment.

Q. Did you not omit to assess any property to the Central Pacific Railroad Company?

A.-I did not know of the Central Pacific Railroad owning any property until Mr. Ryan gave his testimony. There was no property assessed to Central Pacific Railroad.

Q.-Did not the Board of Equalization add to the assessment roll property belonging to the Central Pacific Railroad to the amount of twenty-six thousand three hundred and seventeen dollars. A. The figures I do not recollect.

Q-Has not that company paid taxes on this amount?
A.-I am not Tax Collector.

Q-Have you made your assessments in person or by deputy? A. In seventy-six done field work. In seventy-seven supervised deputies' work, and done some myself, but it was principally done by deputies.

Q-What is the amount of poll tax collected by you each year? A. In seventy-six, four thousand two hundred dollars from railroad, poll, and hospital tax.

Q-Was not the total assessment roll, in eighteen hundred and seventy-six, five million eight hundred and seventeen thousand three hundred and sixty-six dollars?

A. The cash value of land and real estate was three million sixtyfive thousand four hundred and fifty-one dollars, and personal pro

perty raised it to six million two hundred and thirty-six thousand and fifty-one dollars. Board of Equalization reduced it four hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

Q. And in eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, five million five hundred and thirteen thousand nine hundred and twenty-five dollars?

A. In eighteen hundred and seventy-seven it was five million two hundred and twenty-five thousand two hundred and thirty-eight dollars, but Board of Equalization raised the assessment on railroad tracks to make the difference.

Q.-Was not more land assessed in eighteen hundred and seventyseven than in eighteen hundred and seventy-six?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And a larger amount of improvements?

A. Yes, sir. But the improvements were not much in excess, mostly fencing. Not much on Haggin's land, except fencing. Q.-Then why is the roll less?

A.-There was a uniform reduction in all description of property; in stock falling off in numbers, and depreciation of value. Gave stock in as beef cattle, which were really not beef cattle. They were bought for ten dollars a head. Beef cattle are fat steers from threeyears old and more, valued at twelve dollars a head. In eighteen hundred and seventy-six assessed at twenty dollars a head. Saw some very fine cattle on Haggin's ranch. He sold a great deal of beef cattle. Think he lost by the drought of last year, but do not know of my own personal knowledge. Have heard of beef cattle being sold at a large price.

Q.-With whom did you consult in regard to the valuation of Mr. Haggin's land?

A.-With Dr. Thornton, but only as to quality. I fixed the valuation according to my own judgment.

Q. Did you have any personal interviews with Mr. Haggin in regard to his assessments, and where did you hold these interviews, and what was the result?

A.--No, sir, except with reference to desert lands. I was in San. Francisco, and Mr. Haggin sent for me. He thought that the desert lands were not assessable. I applied to the Attorney-General, and he gave his opinion that they were taxable. I told him my authority, and that I was obliged to assess his desert lands for not less than fifty cents an acre. The interview was in Mr. Haggin's office, in San Francisco. The statement of Mr. Haggin's land was not filed; and, two or three weeks before the time ran out, Dr. Thornton came to me and said Mr. Haggin's land agent was sick with brain_fever, and for me to go to Haggin's office and get the information I needed. Mr. Haggin and myself could not agree, and so Mr. Haggin referred to his agent, Dr. Thornton. Haggin paid my expenses to and from Kern County. Only had one interview with him. Received from him fifty dollars for my services, and the people of Kern County knew that fact. Did not change my opinion of the valuation of the land from my interview with Haggin. It was in June that I saw him, and I was eager to get his statement, so as to have the assessment roll ready at the proper time. I was in San Francisco two or three days. I do not recollect whether Judge Colby was in San Francisco at that time or not, but have been there

year for Readers, or that the amount paid will average about that sum, which would make an aggregate of seventy-one thousand dollars paid yearly for McGuffey's Readers; and it is further reasonable to presume that the McGuffey's Readers now in use have lost half their value as to durability, which would make the total number worth fifty per cent. less than the original cost, to wit, thirty-five thousand five hundred dollars. This sum can be saved to the school children of this State, by exchanging their half worn-out McGuffey's Readers for new ones of the Pacific Coast Series, as provided in Senate Bill No. 51. We therefore see that a change of text-books, as provided in the bill under consideration, would not only not incur additional expense to the schools, but would be a positive pecuniary advantage of thirty-five thousand five hundred dollars to the parents and children of this State. Besides this direct pecuniary advantage to the pupils in the public schools, there is another branch of the subject which may properly be considered under this head.

The bill under consideration provides that the books adopted shall be manufactured entirely within the State of California during the period for which they are continued in use, and that no Chinese labor shall be employed in the manufacture thereof. The authority of the State to impose such conditions is beyond question; the beneficial results of such conditions are apparent to every man of common intelligence, and of itself affords argument for the passage of the bill which overwhelms and obliterates anything like individual interest that may be maliciously asserted against it. To encourage home industries, and to protect and foster local interests, is as much the duty of the State as to educate its children. Its peculiar mission is advancement, as well in the material as the intellectual development of its citizens, and every encouragement and advantage should be offered by the legislative authority for the accomplishment of that end.

The common interest of the people of the Pacific Coast will par don and justify the provision of the bill discriminating against Chinese labor. The interest and welfare of American citizens, and those who may become such, is of such great and paramount importance as to imperatively demand governmental discrimination against a race whose mission is that of the lowest, mingling the wor ship of the infidel with an instructive depravity that breathes pesti. lence out upon the moral and social world.

The benefit that the people of the State will realize, should this bill become a law, must be readily acknowledged by all persons who are interested in our local development, and will be a potent argu ment against the ingenious devices of the paid agents of a foreign enterprise, whose only object is to draw from the people of our State the means to enrich themselves, without supplying a corresponding benefit.

are:

The conclusions of the committee upon this branch of the subject First-That, as the pupils in the public schools are, under the pro visions of this bill, to receive new books in even exchange for old ones, an amount will be saved equal to half the sum paid yearly for McGuffey's Readers, to wit, thirty-five thousand five hundred

dollars.

Second-In view of the fact that McGuffey's Readers are wholly manufactured beyond the limits of our State by labor which in

nowise contributes to our material advancement, and that the Pacific Coast Readers are to be manufactured within our State by labor whose interest is indissolubly connected with the intellectual and material prosperity of our people, the committee regard the benefit to be realized by the change so positive and great that they dare not hazard an estimate of the pecuniary advantage that will follow upon the adoption of the Pacific Coast Readers.

Another branch of the subject, which has been seriously considered by the committee, and mentioned in the preamble of the bill under consideration is: Is the State morally bound by the contract entered into on the sixth day of January, eighteen hundred and seventyfive, by the State Board of Education and A. L. Bancroft & Co., by which the Pacific Coast Readers were adopted for use in the public schools of this State?

The committee do not think, under ordinary circumstances, that the pecuniary interest of any company or individual should be considered in connection with the public schools of this State, especially if such consideration would in the least jeopardize the harmony of our school system. Yet, if the pecuniary interests of individuals are of such a character as to be in full accord with the advancement and success of our school system, the committee consider that to encourage and foster such individual interests is a commendable method of contributing to the prosperity of our cherished school system. Neither does the committee think that the legislative department of the government can reverse or set aside a judicial decision pronounced by the highest tribunal of the State, and most certainly has no desire to do so; and in confessing a moral obligation on the part of the State to fulfill the contract alluded to, we must certainly sanction the decision of the Supreme Court upon the strictly technical questions which alone were considered in the case of The People of the State of California ex rel. the Attorney-General vs. The State Board of Education.

It appears that on the sixth day of January, eighteen hundred and seventy-five, the State Board of Education, duly constituted under the law to act for the State in the selection of text-books, made and entered upon the journals of its proceedings the following order: "Mr. Kennedy offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That we hereby adopt the Pacific Coast First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Readers, on the terms and conditions named in the proposal of the publishers, Messrs. A. L. Bancroft & Co. Said Readers to go into use in the Public Schools of California on June first, eighteen hundred and seventy-five, their use to be immediate and mandatory six months thereafter.

After a protracted discussion the resolution was adopted."

By this order it appears that the State entered into a contract with A. L. Bancroft & Co., by which they were to furnish for the public schools of this State the Pacific Coast Readers at certain stipulated prices. Bancroft & Co., relying upon the good faith of the State, as expressed through its authorized agents, the State Board of Education, incurred great expense in providing the material and machinery for the manufacture of the books referred to, and did manufacture about forty thousand volumes of such books, when the State Board of Education were enjoined from further proceedings under the order passed January sixth, eighteen hundred and seventy-five, and upon a hearing of the case the injunction was made perpetual. This case