Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-02-25
HOW to TEST THEIR GOOD FAIIH.

sor.s have come forward with declara-
lions of their concern for the public
veal, and have sought to produce the
belief that they were bent upon soly-
ing the Debris problem by putting stop
to hydraulic mining. It Would perhaps be
worth while to inquire why these
professors of a suddenly assumed public
spirit did not come to the front in
the beginning of the legislative session,
and why their energies should have been
restrained until it is manifestly too
late for them to accomplish anything.
There are, however, more important con-
siderations than these before us, and to
them we shall attend. Il has. been
alleged by some of these eleventh-hour
workers that the Legislature is not really
indisposed to take any action against
hydraulic mining, but that it has in some
mysterious way been hindered from
attacking that interest by the efforts of
the defenders of the Drainage Act. Their
assertion. is that if only the Drainage Act
was repealed, the Legislature would in
stantly turn round and take strong action
against hydraulic mining.
Now it is perfectly clear that the reverse
of this allegation is very much the more
| logical and reasonable. The friends of the
Drainage Act have been forced to rely upon
that measure as the sole means of protec.
ton and relief, because of the notorious
indisposition of the Legislature to inter
fere with hydraulic mining. They are,
therefore, in position to say to the sham
friends of the people " If you believe that
"the Legislature can be persuaded to stop
Hydraulic mining, prove your faith by
"your works. Present some bill which
will afford immediate relief if enacted.
q Lobby for it. Secure its passage. And
90 when you have done this, you may come
90 to us, and we will talk about the repeal
{" OF the debris bill This is the only
common-sense course that the pretended
opponents of hydraulic mining can adopt,
but it is to be noted that they have not
thought of any such programme. With
all their hysterical clamor they have thus
far evolved nothing but concurrent res.
olution proposing a resort to litigation by
the State. That is not a practical or a
present remedy, and everyone knows this.
Litigation, even if ultimately successful,
cannot be depended upon to relieve the
people of this valley. The slow processes
of the Courts would to certainty inter.
pose such delays that long before conclu.
sion was reached the destruction sought to
be averted might have been consummated.
Litigation, therefore, cannot be regarded
as an efficient means of protecting the
valley, and those who favor it while calling
for the repeal of the debris bill are open
to the charge of insincerity.
But why should anyone demand the re-
peal OF the debris bill as a preliminary tc
a renewal of litigation? Is it not known
to the public that the debris bill consti
tutes no bar to legal proceedings at pres
ent 1t is as open to thefarmers as it evel
was to bring suit against the miners. The
enactment of the debris bill has not ope
rated to restrain them in any way. TIT
position therefore that the repeal of tn,
debris bill is necessary for any such pur
pose is false and fraudulent position, anl
whoever advances it is attempting to de
ceive the people. No legislation had il
the premises interferes in the least respec
with the right of the citizen to seek re
dress through the Courts, and this fac
should be clearly comprehended.
II the nti-hydraulic agitators are sincere
they can easily vindicate their motives
We have shown them the way, but w
venture to predict that they will not follow
it. for nothing is farther from-sheir inten
tions than to assist in settling this question
outside of the Courts. They have, Il
truth, shown no disposition whatever t.
urge anything practical. They propos
nothing that would not require years o
time and hundreds of thousands of dollar
in money to carry out, and when the en'
was at last reached the decision might b
against the interests of the Sacrament
Valley. That is the kind of programm
these pretentious charlatans are trying t
bolster up just now. 1t is on its face
mockery, delusion, and snare. 1t i
obviously intended as stalking hors
under cover of which the debris biil-th
one protective agency capable of accom-
plishing anything may be attacked "Sur
render all your defenses, say these people
and trust to Legislature, which ha
"never yet shown the faintest sign of carinj
1.-TWO straws about your interests, for relic
" and protection. The proposition is 81
imbecile and fatuous that we are sur
prised to find it advocated by men win,
certainly appear in other respects not
little jealous OF their reputation for intelli
gence.
The interest of the people Of the Sacra
mento valley, however, is plain enough
They cannot afford to abandon one line o
defense before they have secured another
and programme of litigation is not new
line of defense, but mere trap. They
must cling resolutely to the debris bill S,
long as the Legislature refuses to interfer'
with hydraulic mining. They must holC
on to that measure until some other anC
swifter and more effective means of protec
ton is accorded them. They must turn
deaf ear to the men who pretend that it i
safe or wise to abandon this bill, yet WHIT
have nothing but uncertainty to recon
mend as a substitute for it. All who ar,
allied with such propositions must be re
garded with sharp distrust, for it is cles.
that they are not disinterested or intelli
gent friends of the people. As the cas-
stands to-day, if the debris bill il
allowed to be repealed there is no protec
ton remaining; and be it remembered
further, that it will never be too late t.
have recourse to litigation, though pas
experience has shown how frsil and uncer
tain defense the Courts are at the best
If, however, the newly. discovered oppo
nents of hydraulic mining mean to justify