STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY. 15 



said building, shall have been raised by the City and County of Sacramento, or the people 

 thereof, and 'paid into the State Treasury, bolii of said sums to be used for the same jjurpose. 

 Sec. 6. This Act shall take eflbct iininediatel3\ 



After considerable delay the bill finally passed both Houses, and 

 was approved by Governor Stoneman March 9, 1883. 



At the city election, held in March, I880, the question of a special 

 tax for new Pavilion purposes, to raise $30,000, was submitted to a 

 vote of the people of Sacramento, who decided by a vote of three 

 thousand six hundred and fifty-five in favor of, to one hundred and two 

 as against the proposition. A special levy of thirty cents on each 

 $100 was made, and the $30,000 collected and paid into the treasury, 

 together with $10,000 raised by the Directors, making $40,000, an 

 amount equal to thatapprojH-iatcd by the State. The Board of Directors 

 immediately advertised for plans, offering as a premium the sum of 

 $300 to the' successful plan. On the ninth day of April, 1883, the 

 State Board of Agriculture and the State Capitol Commissioners met 

 in the Executive Department at the Capitol to receive plans, which 

 were submitted by the following named architects: Messrs. F. Hil- 

 bert, Wm. Curlett, and A. W. Burrell of San Francisco; Messrs. 

 Wm. Kirk and the Newsom Brothers of Oakland, and W. li. Ham- 

 ilton, James Seadler, and A. A. Cook of Sacramento. After receiving 

 the explanations of their respective plans, the Board of Directors 

 proceeded to ballot for choice (the Capitol Commissioners claiming 

 the right to act as a separate Board). On the first ballot the vote stood 

 as follows (each Director voting for three plans, and the plans for the 

 building to be selected from the three receiving the highest number 

 of votes): 



Mr. Curlett's plan received 9 votes 



Mr. Seadler's plan received 10 votes 



Mr. Burrell's plan received 10 votes 



Mr. Cook's plan received 3 votes 



Mr. Hamilton's plan received 1 vote 



The plans of Messrs. Burrell, Seadler, and Curlett receiving the 

 highest number of votes, were selected to be voted for. The Directors 

 then proceeded to vote for their first, second, and third choice, all to 

 be submitted to the Board of Capitol Commissioners for their verifi- 

 cation. The result was as follows: 



FIRST CHOICE. 



Mr. Seadler's plan received 7 votes 



Mr. Burrell's plan received 3 votes 



Mr. Curlett's plan received — 1 vote 



SECOND CHOICE. 



Mr. Burrell's plan received 6 votes 



Mr. Curlett's plan received 3 votes 



Mr. Seadler'.-! plan received 2 votes 



THIRD CHOICE. 



Mr. Curlett's plan received 7 votes 



Mr. Burrell's plan received 2 votes 



Mr. Seadler's plan received 2 votes 



Whereupon, Mr. Seadler's plan was declared to be the first choice 

 of the State Board of Agriculture, Mr. Burrell's the second, and Mr. 

 Curlett's the third. The Board of Directors then ordered the three 



