CALIFORNIA. 



125 



B 



FIG. 6. DEVICES FOR CABLE-GRIPS. 



little friction, and does not grip the cable fix- 

 edly until full headway is attained. In Fig. 6 

 three different grips are indicated, A showing 

 the solid, vise-like grip, B the four clutch- 

 pulleys, as in the Paine method, and Tay- 

 lor's endless-chain grip. Details of the tight- 

 ening arrangements are omitted in the draw- 

 ings for the sake of clearness, but it may be 

 said that the screw and the toggle or knee- 

 joint are important factors. In the Paine 

 method, attachments are made so that when 

 full headway has been attained, a solid grip 

 seizes the cable and receives the permanent 

 strain. This acts automatically, so that when 

 the car-brake is applied the solid grip is re- 

 leased, and the cable passes between the clutch- 

 pulleys as fast or as slowly as may be desired. 

 In the Taylor grip (0) closely fitting endless 

 chains run in grooves around the vise-like jaws, 

 and stop only when the pressure is made so 

 great that cable, chain, and jaws become rela- 

 tively fixed. The connection between the grip 

 and the car is usually by means of a shank or 

 shanks thin enough to pass freely through the 

 tunnel-slot, and broad enough to bear all prob- 

 able strains of traction. 



Careful estimates have been made of the 

 comparative running expenses of horse-railways 

 and cable-railways, which, while they vary 

 somewhat, are invariably in favor of the latter. 

 The footings of two elaborate tables, giving 

 the annual running expenses, are as follows: 

 A horse-railway, 3 miles, double track, speed 

 4 miles per hour, 32 cars,.2 minutes apart 

 = $138,880. A cable-railway, same length, 

 speed 6 miles per hour. 24 cars, and 24 dum- 

 mies, 24- minutes apart' = $88,246.71. Differ- 

 ence in favor of cable-road, $50.633.29. The 

 carrying capacity of cars and dummies on the 

 cable road can be increased indefinitely, with 

 comparatively slight increase in the running 

 expenses. 



CALIFORNIA. State Government. The follow- 

 ing were the State officers during the year: 

 Governor, George Stoneman, Democrat ; Lieu- 

 ten ant-Governor, John Daggett ; Secretary of 

 State, T. L. Thompson ; Treasurer, D. J. Oulla- 

 han ; Comptroller, John P. Dunn ; Superin- 

 tendent of Public Instruction, W. T. Welcker ; 



Attorney- General, E. C. Marshall ; Surveyor- 

 General, H. I. Willey; Railroad Commission- 

 ers, G. J. Carpenter, W. P. Humphreys, and W. 

 W. Foote. Supreme Court : Chief-Justice, R. 

 E. Morrison ; Associate Justices, W. H. Myrick, 

 E. W. McKinstry, E. M. Ross, J. D. Thornton, 

 J. R. Sharpstein, and S. B. McKee. 



Financial. The report of the State Treasurer 

 for 1885 and 1886 shows the sums paid by the 

 counties to be as follows : 1885, $3,708,715.48 ; 

 1886, $4,695,651.36. 



In 1885 the school fund received $1,694,- 

 863.20 ; in 1866, $1,743,731.34. General fund: 

 1885, $1,619,741.40; 1886, $2,545,054.84. 



In February, 1886, the State Superintendent 

 apportioned school moneys to the various 

 counties to the amount of $1,513,086.85 on the 

 basis of 250,097 children. 



State University. In 1885 there were in the 

 colleges at Berkeley 241 students ; in affiliated 

 colleges, 280 ; total, 521. 



The Academic Senate, comprising the pro- 

 fessors, instructors, lecturers, and assistants of 

 all departments, numbered eighty-nine mem- 

 bers. Of this number thirty-two were at 

 Berkeley. The university had real property, 

 funds, and endowments, to the aggregate value 

 of over $3,000,000, including a State endow- 

 ment fund of $811,500 ; United States endow- 

 ment, $492,000; D. O. Mills's endowment, 

 $75,000; Brayton fund, $90,155 ; Reese Libra- 

 ry fund, $50,000 ; university site and building, 

 $1,000,000 ; Lick fund and observatory, $700,- 

 000; Toland property, $15,000; Hasting en- 

 dowment, $100,000. 



Irrigation. Perhaps the most important topic 

 before the people of the State, and the one that 

 has excited the most interest, is irrigation, A 

 convention for considering the subject was held 

 at Riverside in May, 1884, and another at Fres- 

 no in December of the same year. On the 26th 

 of April of this year the Supreme Court, in de- 

 ciding the case of Lux vs. Haggin, held by a 

 majority of one that the common law prevails 

 in California respecting riparian rights, the 

 riparian owners along the streams of the State 

 being entitled to the exclusive use of the flow- 

 ing water. This decision practically renders 

 worthless the land remote from streams in arid 



