Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-12-24
CONGRESSIONAL AND STATE DRAINAGE
ACTS.

EDS. RECORD UNION We are nearly at
the close of the year, and you have done
well in sketching in review at least some of
the features of the struggle this State has
gone through in the last Eve years in regard
to the debris problem. You have done right
first, last, and all the time, to impress the
fact that this great question has a national
side that Congress is obligated to regard /;
but it would appear that in the hands of
Representative Page we have been next to
powerless in arousing Congress TO its duty,
and I" the sop in the pan" he has at last pro-
duced, is practically totally unworthy the
great State he represents. And yet just
may make come allowance
for the difficulties he may have been
beset with. Some day he will have to give
an account of his stewardship, and il may be
better understood how far he did what he
could That aphorism, which sprung from
the refined sensibihties Of Florence Nightin-
gale, modestly covering more than an angel
could have accomplished, is very apt to be
misused by others to pass over their short
cominrs. and while then it invokes pity. it
will not bear analysis. There is an older
maxim, more adapted TO men, which it might
be well if they always bore in mind. "What-
soeyer thy hand fndeth to do, do it with thy
might" It will be hard matter perhaps
for Mr.. Page to prove that his record will
show that standard, Notwithstanding the
promptings he has received from you from time
to tine. But these promptings ought to have
woke up Congress even, irrespective OF Mr..
Page, for in these days news travels, and
kilograms of the gist of your remarks to-day
will be OF the desk OF every Congressman to-
morrow, as they have been again and again
heretofore, through the columns of their local
or New York press, and their supineness IL
mean Congressmen) was perhaps never calcu-
lated to encourage Mr.. Page; and even if
sincere, he may have felt that he had to
bide his time" Was il not SO also for thrice
five years, nearly-from the time of the ex-
ploration for Pacific railway-before that
grand tact was accomplished? Nay, more /;
it was that time before Congressional aid
theiess we can rejoice that that victory
was won at last, and row, then.
the East is almost next door to Us.
But have extended this preamble more than
l intended, and still omitted to note that
even here you had the hardest struggle to get
legislative debris inquiry and obtain the Gre
alton of the office of State Engineer, to ascer-
tain the facts and determine the best mode of
solving the problem. And when that was
done, and further bill obtained, to execute
ct least some of the necessary work, under
AN Act to promote drainage" and some
contracts were already let. / believe, and the
Commissioners, including the Governor, were
prepared to let more, and only asked the peo-
pie to prepare to give the one-twentieth of
ore per cent, or 80 cents per 81 GOO of assess
able property, for their own protection, which
they had consented to already by their repre-
sentatiyes, yet a few individuals, presuming
to call themselves " the psople of the State
of California u, April 20, 1881, raised almost
frivolous objsctious in the Superior Court OF
this city of the irreparable injury they
would sustain, and that the law was an idle
pretense, and the Commissioners were not
duly elected, and should be ousted." Judge
benson, like sensible man, however, could
bot see it, but allowed said people" to carry
their appeal to the Supreme Court ; and per-
haps about three months ago the rebellious
plea was absolutely sustained, without hardly
touching the merits Of the question; but first,
because the Supreme Court, spite OF all the
researches of the State Engineer, and spite
Of all the requirements in the bill Of
April %, 1880. to give it effect, and
spite of the Governor and Surveyor-General
being two of the Commissioners, yet the Su.
preme Court could not understand what It
was all about, or what is had to do with
drainage? Good Heavens, when | read the
finding of the Supreme Court l opened my
eyes in utter anazement In fact the decision
was 8 too utterly utter, for anything, as the
phrase goes. Why IAN Act to promote
drainage" after all the experiences we have
had of Swamp Ian Districts, and the report
Of the uselessness of q drain through Yolo,
and the State Engineers report, backed by
Colonel Mendell. that the State must have
the control of the rivers and the debris,
makes 1t q self-evident fact that dams to
hold the debris back are absolute necessities,
to keep the river water clear enough to scour
the rivers. That is at least part of what
drainage is. The title, san Act to promote
drainage" therefore, was expressive, compre-
hensive and concise; and very creditable to
the author of the bill :; and it appears TO me
utterly frivolous to charge the bill with con-
ficting with the title /; and the rule that the
Supreme Court laid down for its own guild
ance left them no reasonable excuse for the
rendering they gave. The rule was this:
" In the consideration of such question it is
a cardinal rule that nothing but clear viola
ton Of the Constitution will justify Court
in oyerruling the legislative will Every sta
tute is pronounced Co be constitutional, and
every intendnent IS in favor of it's
validity. When statute is challenged as
in conflict with the fundamental law,
clear and substantial conflict must be
found to exist to justify its condemnation
the provisions of . law must correspond with
the subject of which the title Is the name"
Now, then, If that was complied With, there
was no violation of the Constitution for, re-
garding the scope of such an Act to have any
chance of success, "that dams were essential"
then 9. an Act to promote drainage" covers
al that is necessary TO that end, and the Su-