was completed November ninth following. The building was finished January 1, 1855. It was rented to the State for Capitol purposes at an annual rent of $12,000, and was used for that purpose from 1855 until the completion of the present Capitol.

On April 18, 1856, the Legislature passed a law to provide for the construction of a Capitol building on the public square between I and J and Ninth and Tenth Streets, in the City of Sacramento. By the Act Controller Whitman, Secretary of State Douglass, and G. Griswold were appointed a Board of Capitol Commissioners, with power to make contracts and superintend the erecting of the building. The proposed Capitol was to be ready for occupation on or before January 1, 1858, and the cost was limited to $300,000. The law also authorized the issuance of thirty-year bonds to that amount to pay the expenses of construction. The Board organized a few days after the passage of the Act, and immediately advertised for plans. On August 13, 1856, they adopted the plans submitted by Reuben Clark. The building contemplated in these plans was to be in the form of a Greek cross, of the Corinthian style, with a rotunda and dome. It was to be two hundred and twelve feet long and one hundred and fortyfive feet wide, to have a cellar beneath for the reception of fuel and rubbish. Above the cellar was to be the basement story, raised about five feet above the grade of the lot. The height of this story was to be fourteen feet, and it was to contain the apartments of the executive and judicial officers. The second story was to be thirty-six feet in height, and in it were to be located a circular Senate chamber, sixty-four and one half by fifty feet, and an Assembly hall, in the form of a half square, eighty-four by fifty-two and one half feet. The library was also to be on this floor, and above it were to be a number of committee rooms. The height of the dome from the ground line was to be one hundred and thirty-two feet, and the rotunda was to be forty feet in diameter and one hundred and eighteen feet in height. It was designed that up to the first floor the walls should. be of granite, and above that of brick, coated on the outside with mastic. On September first the Board advertised for proposals for erecting the build

ing, and on November first _the_bids-sixteen in number-were opened, and the contract was awarded to Joseph Nougues for $200,000. The highest bid was $290,000. On December second the contractor staked off the ground for the building, and on the fourth the earth was broken for its foundation. The bill provided that the contractor should be paid in bonds as the work progressed, but on the fifteenth the State officers refused to issue the bonds for the work that had been done, on the strength of a decision which had been rendered by the Supreme Court, declaring in effect that the indebtedness created by the Act being in excess of the amount permitted by the Constitution, was void. The contractor instituted an action of mandamus to compel the issuance of the bonds, but the Supreme Court decided adversely to him, and the work was stopped and never resumed. On April 11, 1859, the Legislature allowed the claim of Nougues on account of labor and material furnished under this contract for the sum of $5,388 05.

The want of a suitable State Capitol building was felt more as the public business increased in volume. Governor Johnson, in his annual message of 1858, in referring to that subject, said:

After the frequent changes we have witnessed of the seat of Government, at length a degree of permanency has been given to it which fully justifies speedy action being taken for the erection of public buildings, suitable for the various departments of Government. Independent of that laudable pride which, in the present condition of public affairs, should impel such action-in a pecuniary sense it would be serviceable to the public good. The amount of rents now paid by the State Government fully equals the interest on $300,000, at seven per cent per annum, the same rate which is to be paid on our public debt. That sum, or even less, will suffice to erect a suitable building for the necessary purposes of the State, and I recommend the passage of a law, at this session, making provision for the erection of such a building.

The Governor further recommended the erection of a first-class building, and the appropriation of $100,000 a year, for three years, for the purpose of paying for its construction. On February 3, 1858, R. D. Ferguson offered a resolution in the Assembly for the appointment of a joint committee, to confer with the Supervisors of Sacramento County and ascertain on what terms the county would dispose of the Court House, then occupied as the Capitol building. The resolution was adopted by both Houses, and, on the next day, the committee was appointed. The Supervisors offered to dispose of the Court House for $125,000, and on February twenty-seventh W. I. Ferguson introduced a bill in the Senate to provide for the purchase of that building by the State at the price named.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings, and on March thirteenth a majority of the committee recommended its passage. The minority submitted a dissenting report on the seventeenth, based on the following reasons: That the State had been donated a square of land in Sacramento, valued at about $40,000, which would revert to the city if not used; that the State had, at a cost of three thousand dollars, procured plans of a magnificent Capitol of suitable size; that a branch prison would shortly be established, and the granite needed for the erection of a Capitol building could then be taken out and prepared by the prisoners; that the brick needed could also be manufactured at a small cost by the same labor; that a Capitol building could be so erected at a cost of not over $200,000; that the Court House was not fitted for the purposes of a Capitol, as it had been hastily erected for another purpose, and had become prematurely old and dilapidated; and that to fit it up to make it answer for a Capitol would incur an expense much larger than to erect a new building. They therefore recommended the indefinite postponement of

the bill. The Senate had the matter under consideration until towards the end of the session, when it was lost.

On March 13, 1858, Nougues, the contractor to build the Capitol under the Act of 1856, sent a communication to the Legislature proposing, for $125,000, to erect upon the public square which had been donated to the State by the City of Sacramento, a building in all respects according to the plans of the Court House, except that instead of having a prison in the basement, it should be fitted up for public offices. He proposed to have the building ready for occupancy by December first following. This offer met the same fate as the Court House purchasing bill.

Soon after the meeting of the Legislature of 1858, a movement was inaugurated to remove the seat of government from Sacramento to Oakland. On March twenty-third, a memorial was read in the Senate from the Mayor, Council, and citizens of the latter city, asking for the change. S. B. Bell offered a resolution to appoint a joint committee to visit Oakland with a view to ascertaining its advantages as a site for the Capital and to receive such proposals to donate land, buildings, etc., as the people of that city might be disposed to make. A like memorial was presented to the Assembly, and was referred to a select committee, who on the twentyseventh reported a resolution to appoint a similar committee to the one proposed in the Senate. This resolution was adopted by both houses and the committee was raised. The three Assemblymen on the joint committee reported on April sixth that the citizens of Oakland proposed to furnish at a nominal rent suitable buildings for the use of the State until a Capitol should be erected; that they proposed to donate twenty acres within the city limits for a site for the contemplated public buildings; and that the location was better than at Sacramento. They strongly recommended the removal, and presented a bill to the House to provide for the permanent location of the Capital at Oakland. The two Senators concurred in the report, except that they made no recommendation in regard to a removal. The bill to remove to Oakland was taken up in the Assembly on the twenty-first and defeated by a vote of forty-four to fifteen. In the Assembly, on March 2, 1859, the Committee on Public Buildings, acting in accordance with the direction of that body, reported a bill to provide for the construction of a State Capitol in Sacramento. The bill contemplated the erection of a building in accordance with the plans which had been prepared under the Act of 1856, at a cost of not over $120,000. The consideration of this was made the special order for the fourteenth, at which time W. P. Rodgers offered a substitute, to authorize the Common Council of Oakland to levy a special tax of $10 on each $100 worth of real estate in that city, and the Supervisors of Alameda County to levy a tax of fifty cents on the $100 of real estate in that county, to create a fund for building a Capitol building at Oakland; and to authorize the Governor to accept for the State a donation of ten acres of land in that city as a site for the building, and to issue his proclamation of the removal of the seat of government to Oakland. A resolution was adopted by the House, by a vote of thirty-two to thirty, raising a committee of five to proceed to Oakland and inquire into the expediency of locating the seat of government there. On the twenty-second the bills again came up, when Henry Hancock introduced a bill to appropriate $200,000 for the purpose of commencing the erection of a Capitol at Oakland. On the same day four of the visiting committee submitted a report warmly recommending the removal, while the remaining member expressed the view that it would be impolitic to leave Sacramento. A week later the Rodgers bill was defeated by a vote of twenty-eight to thirty, and the Sacramento bill was

refused engrossment by a vote of fifteen to forty-one. The Hancock bill was laid on the table on April ninth.

Governor Weller, in his annual message of 1860, recommended the appropriation of $100,000 for the purpose of erecting a Capitol building at Sacramento, and he argued that it would be a move in the direction of economy, as the State was then paying $8,000 per annum rental for a building-an amount equal to eight per cent per annum on the estimated cost of the structure which had been contemplated by the Act of 1856. Since the adjournment of the Legislature of 1859 the question of the removal of the seat of government from Sacramento had been agitated to a considerable extent in San Francisco and Oakland, and it was anticipated that an effort to remove to one of those cities would be strongly pressed in the session of 1860. On January twentieth of that year, R. A. Redman introduced a bill in the Senate to remove the seat of government to Oakland in July following, provided that city would, within sixty days after the passage of the Act, execute a deed to the State for a quantity of land, not less than ten acres in extent and suitably located in that city, for the State buildings. The bill was referred to a select committee, but it never came up again.

On the twenty-fourth, a bill was introduced in the Assembly by W. B. Maxson, to locate the Capital at San Francisco after July eighth. It was referred to the same committee, and met with the fate of the Redman bill. On the twenty-seventh, the Senate adopted a resolution to appoint a joint committee to take into consideration the permanent location and removal, if deemed expedient, of the Capital, and on February seventh the House concurred in the action of the Senate. The committee visited San Francisco, San José, and Oakland, and on March eighth submitted their report. They had received from the Supervisors of San Francisco the offer of a donation of any public square, except Portsmouth, in that city as a location for the building; and they also had proposed to issue city bonds to the amount of $150,000 for the purpose of raising money to erect the building, with the understanding that the State should own the land and building so long as it should be used for the purposes indicated, but in case the Capital should be removed from San Francisco the property should revert to the city. As an additional inducement for the location of the Capital at San Francisco, Beideman & Page, proposed to convey to the State for a site for the structure four blocks of land, and to improve the streets around them. The citizens of Oakland renewed the offer that had been made by them the year before. The authorities and citizens of San José claimed that the removal of the Capital from that city had been unconstitutional, and that, therefore, it should be relocated there. The authorities of Sacramento tendered the free use of the then State House for as long a time as the State should see fit to occupy it. Four of the committee recommended that it was inexpedient to remove from Sacramento, and that an appropriation should be made for the immediate construction of a State House in that city. On March twentieth, three other members of the committee submitted a lengthy report recommending the removal of the seat of government to San Francisco at the close of the then session, and they presented a bill to that end.

On January 23, 1860, S. A. Merritt introduced a bill in the Senate to provide for the construction of a Capitol building in Sacramento, and on March twelfth the majority of the committee to whom it had been referred recommended its passage, with sundry amendments. On the fifteenth, the minority of the committee recommended its indefinite postponement for various reasons. The bill came up in the Senate for discussion on the

twenty-first, and it was amended to extend the appropriation for the entire work to half a million of dollars; to provide for the removal of the Supreme Court to San Francisco; and to authorize the city authorities of Sacramento to condemn for a site for the Capitol the four blocks of land between L and N, Tenth and Twelfth Streets, which land it was agreed should be purchased by the city and donated to the State. The bill passed the Senate on the twenty-third by a vote of twenty-six to seven. On February twentieth, John Conness introduced a bill in the Assembly to build a Capitol building at Sacramento. This Act was almost a duplicate of the Merritt bill. It was favorably reported by the majority of the committee to which it had been referred on March fourteenth; and on the same day an adverse minority report was submitted, because the title to the land to be donated for the location of the Capitol would be imperfect, because the land would be insufficient in quantity; and because the financial condition of the State did not warrant the appropriation of the sum of money contemplated in the bill. After a discussion lasting several days, the Assembly, on the twenty-fourth, passed a substitute for the Conness bill by a vote of fortysix to twenty-four. This bill differed from the Merritt bill in that it did not provide for the removal of the Supreme Court to San Francisco. The substitute bill was passed by the Senate on the twenty-sixth, and on the next day a motion to reconsider was lost by a vote of five to twenty-five. On the twenty-ninth Governor Downey approved the bill.

The law provided for the appointment of a Commission, consisting of the Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, A. C. Monson, and Alfred Redington, whose duty it was made to contract for and superintend the erection of the Capitol upon the tract of land between L and N, Tenth and Twelfth Streets, in Sacramento. After condemning the land mentioned, the Commission was directed to adopt plans for the building, to appoint a supervising architect, and to make contracts for its construction. The entire cost of the building was limited to $500,000, and the City of Sacramento was to pay for the land.

On April 4, 1860, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of Sacramento deeded to the State the blocks of land mentioned in the law, and an ordinance was passed on that day vacating the streets and alleys within the limits named. On the sixth the Commissioners advertised for plans for the contemplated building, and on May nineteenth the seven plans which had been submitted were opened and examined, but it was not until July fourteenth that the Board determined to accept the one submitted by M. F. Butler. In that same month Reuben Clark was appointed Superintending Architect. On June second proceedings were commenced in the Sixth District Court to condemn the lands selected as the site for the building. The Commissioners appointed by the Court to estimate the value of the property sought to be condemned reported, on July fifth, that the compensation to the owners should be $65,517. A tax was levied upon and collected from the citizens of Sacramento to pay that amount. On September third the Capitol Commissioners opened the proposals for the construction of the foundation and the erection of the basement story walls of the building. Seven bids were submitted, the highest being $130,000, and the lowest that of Michael Fennell-$80,000. The contract was awarded to Fennell, and was signed on the twentieth.

It was agreed in the contract that work should be commenced before October first, and finished within ten months. Ground was broken in excavating for the foundation on September twenty-fourth, and that work was completed on October twenty-fifth, when the laying of concrete was commenced. On April 1, 1861, Fennell withdrew from the further prose