Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-03-01
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE.
IcoNrrNuEp FnoM FInsr rAeE.l !

IcoNTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE.
enough, but they would not bcaI Investigation. he
had expected TO say much more uut peIieFeu tu1'
arguments would now be useless, since IL was al
ready settled that the rep al bill would oe defeated
and the present law be continued. Sull ne desired
when he returned his constituents, TO say TO them
that he had done all he could Tor them Large
l,ns al nancy had been expended by the opponents
to the repeal BILL and legislators mad snilkeu bhe
responsibilities which rested upon them. But
when two years hence the Lesis i
tIre should again convene and the
state should be a million and half or two millions
in debt. then his words would be remembered and
needed for not man would then dare to vote
AGAINST the repeal OF the Drainage Act Debris to-
day might succeed, but it was dangerous subject
which was eating its way into the very heart OF
California, and in two years from the present II
would have reached the end Of its rope.
Mr. KELLOGG Of PluInas followed, saying during
his remarks OF half an hour in duration, that the
repeal had been passed by the Senate in indecent
haste and should not be passed by the House. The
bill was for the absolute repeal OF the Drainage Act
There were thousands of dollars Of delinquent taxes
in the several counties which would be lost TO the
State by the passage OF the repeal Act The measure
should be regarded purely from business basis
II looked as the repeal bill had been used by ITS
advocates as lever of obstruction in the present
Legislature. Such course was unwise and inIudi-
cous, and not calculated to aid the cause
OF the repealers. 1t was in bad taste ior
the gentleman from Alameda to make such
an unwarrantable attack as he had upon the Dram
age Commissioners without being able to identity
them with single dishonest act The claims due
the workingmen and contractors employed by the
Commission must not be forgotten or dishonored by
the State True the debris system was an expert
rnent, but he firmly believed that the brush dams
would prove successful as soon as they had been
fairly tested and would the State thousands of
dollars He hoped now that the bill would be dis
DOS Of SO that the Legislature could go with its
business and avoid the necessity of 'ra
session. Until the gentleman from Alameda could
his he hurled hack the ingnuatiOn Of
bribery which had been cast upon the House.
It was idle to assert that San
Francisco and Alameda and other counties had no
community OF interest with their sister counties,
and unwilling to pay their share of the tax to
aid them in escaping damage by the debris. Hy
draulic mining had been sanctioned by the Federal
Government. II mining were to be stopped to-day
there was enough debris in the rivers to overwhem
the Sacramento valley. II the Drainage Act were
TO be repealed we could not with any grace ask aid
from the United States for the Improvement of our
rivers, ETC. The debris problem was gigantic one,
but the drainage law should be allowed to remain
for at least year longer upon the statute book. II
the brush dams permitted to stay where they
were for another year all the freshets which might
occur would be powerless to break them. 1t was
the duty of the Assembly despite the action of the
Senate to refuse to read the repeal bill for first
time.
Mr. Mcclure OF San Francisco next made an able
and exhaustive argument against the passage of the
repeal bill the delivery of which occupied
hour and a half. He reviewed the causes which had
nnally eliminated IN the passage OF an ACT 10 pro-
mote drainage. The State Engineer had submitted
a plan for brush dams for the holding back OF the
deb.is and it had been Endorsed BY ouch distin-
guishe1 scientists as General Alexander, Colonel
Eads and Colonel Mendell. The drainage law
originated az the instigation of farmers in TIE
Sacramento valley whose lands had been damaged
by the flow of debris. 1t was expected that the
remedy would take time and would cost great
deal OF money. The problem presented at the out
set was, who was to pay for the contemplated i'm
proyements. Several sources of revenue were then
considered such as the general government fund,
State taxation district taxation, etc. Persist
ent attempts had been made to interest the
Federal Government in the scheme, with but
small success 1t would have been suicidal policy
to have waited for any such aid, and so it was
deemed by the Legislature when 1t framed the Act
to promote drainage. 1t necessary for the State
of California to do something for herself in such an
extremity. Was the great engineering problem
possible OF solution? 1t for engineers, and not
legislators to deal with that issue. There had been
vast assumption Of knowledge and many silly
opinions advanced upon the debris problem by men
who knew comparatively nothing of the subject
upon which they spoke, and whose opinions were
accordingly entitled TO but little weight. The only
wonder, considering the strain TO which the dams
the Yuba and Bear rivers had been subjected was
that they had not long since been swept
away 10 the last stick of timber and blade of grass
Even had such been the case it would not have
given any logical basis for an argument against the
utility Of brush dams The repeal bill should not
be discussedin any such superficial way, but upon
its merits. II was very well to cry out that the
works had failed, but members of intelligence
would admit that the Drainage Act could not con-
scenlously be repealed on the ground of failure
in the engineering system. 1t had been urged that
the law ought to be repealed, because the miners
could be made to take care of their own detritus ;
but such circumstance was no argument for the
repeal Of the law; If hydraulic mining mining
still be necessary to carry out the projected plans
OF the engineers prevent destruction the rivers
and lands OF the State. There was more than twice
l., Natx.
which had yet reached them and the repeal of the
bill would b9 remedy TO the evil. The Legisa-
ture had to consider the agricultural ard miningin
terests which were so vast that the tax imposed by
the Drainage Ac; relatively very small
in comparison to ihe valuation of the prop
erty Ii the law was bad, it should be amended
but not be repealed so as to suffer the State t. lose
the money already expended in impOunding the
debris It was sheer folly TO advocate any such
course. II was very doubtful, to say the least
whether or not hydraulic mining could legally be
stopped. So to do would seem TO be interference
with vested rights, but IN any event the State
would be bound 10 take care of the debris already
accumulated. A great deal OF money was expended
annually for internal improvements. Why, then,
was it not about time that the State should be will
ing TO submit TO a small levy TO stay the injury
caused by mining debris? The whole responsibility
OF the case rested upon the State, and the Lord
helped those who helped themselves. The debris
tax was not an unjust tax the drainage law was not
unwise unnecessary law, and should not there
fore be repealed.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Fresno was the next speaker
He contended for the passage Of the repeal bill
The science OF engineering now in highly ad-
vanced stage he said but still powerless to check
the Of nature. 1t was the sickens being
held in suspension which was doing the mischief in
the valleys and filling the bay OF San Francisco
IN support OF this statement he read from Danas
work on geology, showing that fine silt had clogged
up the mouths of the Nile and the Mississippi The
idea of building brush fence at Wheatland stop
the overflow OF the Sacramento valley The only
remedy he believed that would ever succeed would
be to compel the miners to take care of their own
debris. Then let the State build permanent breast
work to hold the present supply of debris and the
rivers would soon scour out down to the bay and
main forever clear
Mr.. JACKSON then moved the previous question
Mr.. DEL VALE moved to adjourn. Lost-ayes Is,
noes 81.
The roll was then called on the original motion
which was lost-ayes y, noes so.
Mr.. MURPHY of San Luis 0bispo, gave his reasons
in short address, for desiring the passage of the
repeal bill ; but did not make any specific explana-
ton OF the handwriting ON the wall"
Mr.. MAY of San Francisco made fifteen minute
speech in opposition to the repeal bill. He had
been in favor of the Debris Act from the FIRST and
he knew his constituents well enough to know that
they would iudorse him in bis opinion. And yet he
had never been blind to the cry OF humanity, and
II told tomorrow that there 200, 900 people n
California CRYING out for add and he was to re-
fuse to submit 10 niCgarly tax of
live per cent, he should despise himself
for it, and yet that all there in the debris
which had been in the habit of milking, and they
were not accustomed to being MIXED. But in San
Francisco the system of training different and
the city willing to aid other counties well as
herself Sill another reason why he should vote
against the repeal bill because his party had so
commanded him. Be 90 the experiment" as it had
been termed, failure or success, he should stay by
it to the last.
Mr.. HARRISON of Napa held that it was impossible
III his judgment, to the debris difficulty by the
agency Of brush dams. The source of the trouble
lay further back, in IL mountains and CANYONS
The dams could not afford even temporary relief and
so long as the detrtus was dumped into the waters
just long would it continue to make trouble here
and elsewhere. The only remedy was to cease
throwing these deposits into the headwaters of the
rivers II we expected to protect our cities and
valleys, must stop filling the beds of our rivers
The remedy did not lie in embAnkments or in taxa.
tion and If we continue TO pour the debris INTO the
waters, soon we shall have no State and no money
to it, but in cessation Of these deposits of debris
lay the only true salvation. IL not possible for
science to contend successfully with the terrific
forces OF Nature and the sooner the truth was &C.
knowedged the better it would be for all concerned
Did he believe that the considerations advanced by
the anti-repealers possible of realization he
would vote with them, whether his constituents ap-
proved OF il not, but such were not his opinion
and for the reasons stated he should vote for the
repeal of the Drainage Act
AT the close of Mr.. Hartson's address, Mr. FELTON,
moved the previous question Carried
Mr.. MHIPPLS moved call of the House Lost
The roll was then called. the issue being "Shall
the bill be read the first timer? with the following
result
Ayes-Alviso Birney, Bost, Branch. Cannon.
Crank, Crumpton. Cunningham Del Vale Este-