Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-01-01
Investments which they had at stake.

investments winch they had az STAKE. IL
wasaquestion of life or death to the farmers.
Another years deposit might ruin many
OF them. 1t was case of great import
ance to the cities of the Sacramento Valley,
the heavy property interests of which were
put in jeopardy by the sitting up of the
river beds. And it was plain that it could
end only in one of two ways. Either the
miners would be compelled to take care of
their deposit and keep them from entering
the rivers, or the Sacramento Valley would
have ultimately to be abandoned. The
miners alleged that if the Courts held
them to the disposition of the debris, they
would have to throw up their claims, for
that the expenses would exceed the output
of the mines. The inhabitants of the
valley were as positive that they would be
ruined completely if the mining debris was
not withheld from the rivers, and believing
that they had the law on their side they
were not disposed to care greatly what fate
befell their antagonists Ii, they said,
these men could not earn their living with
out destroying the property OF their neigh
bors, it was time that they went into
different business, but it was not to be ex-
pected that their neighbors would quietly
sacrifice themselves and their belongings.
At this juncture the people who had no
| special interest in the controversy inter-
fered They expressed the opinion that it
would be a great pity to stop hydraulic
mining, because in the first place many
millions of dollars had been invested in it
| in good faith, and in the second place it
was an industry which enriched the State
in a very considerable degree. On the
other hand it was clear that the agricult-
ural interest could not be sHbordinated to
hydraulic mining, but if possible method
must be found of reconciling the two inter-
ests. If the mining detritus was withheld
from the rivers, and they were restored to
their original condition, the evil complained
of would be removed. This, however, was
proposal involving large expenditures, and
the question at once arose, Who was to
bear them The miners were willing to
recognize their responsibility by paying
some special tax, but they said they were
unable to assume the entire burden of
reparation and reclamation. The farmers
very naturally and reasonably protested
against any proposal to tax them for
protection from dangers which it was the
PLAIN duty of the law in the State or the
Nation to protect them against. 1t was
then suggested that since neither of the
parties to the original controversy was able
to handle the matter alone, and since liti-
CATION would only result ia the practical
extinction of one or the other interest, it
was the duty of the State, which neces-
sarily desired the maintenance of both in
terests, to solve the problem by undertake
ing to bear at least part of the outlay.
The parties joined on both sides did not
at this time seek compromise. They
were quite willing to leave their cause to
the Courts. The State alone interposed to
prevent further litigation, and in doing so
the State laid itselfunder obligations. Itcer-
tainly had no right to expect that the farm
ers would forego their claims, Or the miners
take on themselves a crushing burden,
merely to profit outsiders who declined to
take any risk in the proceedings If the
State proposed a compromise it must,
therefore, have been on the understanding
that it would do something to make COM
promise practicable, and this is the only
tenable explanation of its part in the con-
uTOVGTSy. Lie DGdIO consequently, hCtlbS
through the Legislature, year ago passed
law providing for the treatment Of this
debris problem by engineering science, and
levying certain taxes, some general and
some local, for the raising of the necessary
revenue. The general tax levied under the
Act to Promote Drainage is very small. 1t
is but one. twentieth of one per cent, or
five cents on each one hundred dollars.
The fact, however, that it is laid upon
property owners whose direct interests do
not appear to be jeopardized by the flow of
mining debris has been made the ground
for attack upon the bill, and in several of
the southern counties the people and press
have evinced strong determination to
agitate and press for its repeal this winter.
1t might be thought, to read most of the
arguments used against the principle of
general taxation employed in the Debris
bill, that it had been invented for this
particular case, and that no analogous
theory of taxation had ever before been so
much as heard of. But it is nevertheless
true that the principle is a familiar one
that it underlies the entire scheme OF
American government; and that 1t Is
wholesome and even necessary principle in
free state which expects to perpetuate
itself. The contrary idea, that taxes ought
only to be levied in the localities where
they are to be expended, is fallacious and
even mischievous one for its general ap-
plication would cause the dissolution of all
the more extensive forms of confederation,
would break up the Union, and would even
disorganize the several States, and resolve
the community into petty divisions of
townships or municipalities, each of which
would be absorbed in itself, jealous of all
supervision, fossilized, and deprived of the
power of growth. Nations nor States
could be formed if the theory of strictly
local taxation were adhered to. The Fed
eral Government affords illustration every
dav of the extent to which the principle of
general taxation for special purposes is
applied. Take for example the improve
ments in the Mississippi, upon which
some S5,0O0,000 have already been ex-
pended. The revenues employed upon
the important works projected by Captain
Eads have been drawn from every part OF
the Union. 1t may be difficult to perceive
what direct interest a taxpayer in Wash.
ington Territory has in the improvement of
the Mississippi but he must contribute
towards the work, and he does so cheer
fully. The thousand and one enterprises
of internal improvement undertaken by
| the General Government are carried out
under the same principle. Again, the
State adopts this principle in raising its
school fund. 1t does not make every dis
trict pay for it's own schooling. Were it
to follow that course many sparsely settled
districts would be left without schools,
while the wealthy cities would have sur
olus school funds. The State recognizes
it's obligation to afford equal educational
facilities to all its citizens, and therefore it
takes from the superfuities of the rich dis
tricts, and ekes out the poverty of the
poor districts; and thus the advantages of
education are evenly distributed, and mere
locality does not operate as bar to prog
ress. Ii the State had acted upon the
principle advocated by the opponents of
the Debris bill, however, it would have
been impossible for the people who lived in
sparsely settled regions to educate their
children, and thus innumerable evils would
have been brought upon them and upon
the State.
The State itself constantly recognizes the
principle referred to. When an undertake
ing is called for which, though beneficial,
is beyond the capacity of the State, it calls
upon Congress to aid it. That is to say, it
asks Congress to give it some of the money
of all the rest of the country, to spend in a
special way. Such demands are based