Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-03-12
TINE TO COLE TO AN AGREEMENT.

capacity of their currents. 1t is necessary
TO realize that the second of these things is
quite as indispensable as the first, and it is
mistake to imagine that the evil can
be cured by building dams alone
The reason why it is as necessary
to dyke the rivers az to build
dams in the mountains, is, that the
dams cannot retain the lighter debris
under any circumstances, and that it is
this lighter debris which has thus far
done nearly all the damage. There is,
moreover, enough debris now beyond the
reach of dams, to indict the most serious
injury upon the rivers and lowlands, and
the building Of dams alone cannot clear
this material away. A recognition OF
these facts viii show that those bills
which provide merely fer the building of
dams in the mountains are not sufficient to
meet the requirements of the case, and
that they ought, therefore, to be put
aside as unsatisfactory. No plan which
does not provide for a system of dykes as
well as a system of dams can be regarded
as embodying the conclusions of engineer
ing science in the premises and no bill
which does not embody those conclusions
is deserving of serious consideration. On
these points we affirm that there is no
| longer any room for controversy, and
therefore the first thing to be looked to in
whatever plans are submitted must be the
provision for both dams and dykes There
are now three bills before the committees
which satisfy the requirements of science
in this respect, namely, the Parks bill,
the Carr bill, and the Young substitute
! bill. On the broad outlines of the general
plan these three measures are almost alike.
In their further details they vary consid-
erably, and there is consequently room for
difference of opinion. The Young substi-
tute is preferable to the original Parks bill
in that it secures to Sacramento the full
control of her levees. In some other re-
spects, as In the elimination of the Com
mission plan, it also appears to possess an
advantage. There remains one other grave
consideration, and that is the machinery
for raising the necessary revenue. On this
head the Parks and Young bills agree.
They both propose to create drainage dis
tricts, to assess the property of those dis
tricts, and to limit the entire taxation au-
thorized to a per cent of the property
values assessed. to be distributed over a
period of 20 years, through an issue of six
per cent. twenty-year bonds. The Carr
bill, on the other hand proposes to levy
the necessary tax upon the property of the
whole State. 1t is upon this question of
the revenue machinery that the only seri-
GUS ground for dissension now exists, and it
is to this point, therefore, that the most
earnest consideration must be given.
In recent article on the Carr bill we
expressed an apprehension that the method
followed there, of taxing the whole State,
would defeat the purposes of the bill, by
producing so many local drainage schemes
as would absorb the funds needed for the
central objects. If, however, this danger
could be avoided, it is uudeniable that
there may be advanced very cogent argu-
ments in support OF the principle of gen
eral taxation. It is to be observed that
though the assertion of this principle often
provokes local objection, and though it is
sometimes spoken of as contrary to the
fundamental doctrines of republican gov
ernment, such allegations are altogether
without warrant. The truth is, that the
principle of general taxation is one which
penetrates and underlies our whole gov
ernmental system, and that it is
one of the most universally and fire.
quently applied of all principles
The idea that all taxes must represent
special and direct and clearly defined
benefits conferred upon the taxpayers, is a
mistaken one. The common schools are
supported upon the principle of general
taxation, for example. The bachelor pays
his share of the school tax as well as the
parent, and Society recognizes the justice
of the arrangement. The cost of main
tanning schools in sparselY settled districts
is largely borne by the denser and wealth
Ter urban populations and Society cheer
fully sustaius the necessary burdens In
national regards the application of this
principle is still broader and more strongly
emphasized Thus the inhabitant of Cali
fornia is taxed to build jetties on the
/ Mississippi, or harbors on the Chesa-
peake, or lighthouses OH Florida reefs,
while the taxpayers of Vermont and
Maine, of Delaware and Virginia, con-
| tribute to the improvement of The harbers
of the Pacific coast. The same principle
may be traced in the maintenance of the
mail service, in the erection of public
buildings, and in all the multifarious acts
performed by the Federal Government.
There is sense, a deep and high sense, in
which it is the duty and interest of all to
support and assist one another, and the
absolute impossibility of consolidating
stable Government without recognizing and
acting upon this doctrine is open to the
clearest demonstration. In the present
case the adoption of scheme of general
taxation has more than the ordinary sane
tions, moreover. For it may be asserted
without any figure of speech that the des-
TIMES of the whole State are largely de-
pendent upon the speedy solution of the
debris problem. tits not alone the farmers
of Bear river, or the people of Sacramento
and Marysville, or the owners of swamp
lands, or the inhabitants of the Sacra-
mento valley generally, who are concerned.
The future of San Francisco is here
involved. The flow of the debris,
which now threatens the upper waters
and lands, will in no long period bring its
destructive force tc bear upon that great
harbor which forms the foundation of
metropolitan commerce and prosperity.
The diagnosis of the engineers holds out
no hone that San Francisco will escana