Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-10-07

| their livelihood, anu lhaL therefore Gney
were in anything but favorable mental
state for cool reflection and prompt
| acouiescence in whatever decisions the
Courts might make. We knew that what
ever the owners of the mines might be, the
men who worked them were rough and un-
educated, and that the prospect of PEN
! ury would be sure to influence them far
more forcibly than considerations of what
was due to people of whom they had
no personal knowledge. And rejecting
upon the probable consequences of It'll
gaticn we reached the conclusion that
the only justifable policy under the cir
cumstances was one of compromise. We
held, and still hold, that the situation was
one in which the State ought to take an
active interest; that it was a plain duty on
the part of the State to interfere for the
prevention of far more serious evils than
had yet occurred; that the State ought
even to make sacrifices to avert the dangers
which threatened; and that while it was
under obligations to extend protection to
the farmers, it was alike its duty and
interest to seek solution OF the problem
which would render unnecessary the de-
struction of the mining industry.
And because we held these views we in
dorsed the Drainage Act. Science had
given It's verdict that the lands Of the
farmers could be protected without stop:
ping the mines. That verdict has never
yet been impeached we do not believe it
ever will be. Had it been acted upon con-
fdently, the problem would be in fair
way to a satisfactory solution by this time.
But the narrow and illiberal Judgment of
the State press outside the district most
directly concerned, and the interested ef-
forts of fee-hunting attorneys, perverted
public opinion, and paved the way for the
recent decision of the Supreme Court
which declares that the State has no inter
est in such controversy, and that it must
be left to work itself out with the assist
ance of the Courts On the heels OF this
decision comes the intelligence that the
working miners, who had been thrown out
of employment by the placing of injunc-
lions on the mines, have in several instances
determined on defying the process of the
Courts, and returning to work. If the
miners have taken this course they have
unquestionably done wrong, and their ac-
ton can ouly serve to aggravate and in
tensify the i'll feeling already existing. No
doubt it is a hardship on them to be de.
prived of work. Men do not face star7a.
ton for their wives and children placidly,
and at such times cool reason is very apt
to be lacking. But it is not less hardship
that the debris from the mines should be
poured down upon the lands of the farm
ers, and it must be expected that they too
will be spurred on to evaporation by the
failure of their attempts to obtain relief
through the Courts.
OF course the owners of the mines which
have broker the injunctions will be sum-
moned for contempt. Bat when it comes
to the question Of enforcing the injunctions
a further stage is reached. We then quit
the Courts, and approach worse remedy
than litigation. If, as now appears prob.
able, the miners are determined to resist
any further attempts 60 prevent them
from working, what must follow? If the
county authorities are powerless to en-
force the DEGREES of the Courts, an appeal
must be made to the State authorities.
There is no escape from the necessity of
unfolding the law, but assuredly it will
be anything but easy to enforce it in
this case. We have little doubt that it
would be possible to find plenty of hot
headed agriculturists willing to shoulder
musket and act as a posse comitatas. It
is equally certain that there are plenty Of
hot-headed miners who would be ready to
meet them, weapons in hand. But from
any such encounter nothing can issue
but bloodshed, increased rancor, and in
effect civil war upon small scale. Is
this the best solution of the problem OF
which the State is capable? Is it to pre-
pare the way for slaughter that the Su-
preme Court writes its inharmonious de-
cisions?
The RECORD UNION endeayoured to per.
suade the public to a line of policy which
would have disarmed antagonism, satisfied
| both sides, saved the farmers and the
miners both, and at the same time have
given to the State sixty million dollars
worth of fertile lands. This policy was
resisted because it would have cost the
taxpayers five cents on the one hundred
dollars for a few years. Well Ii the
present tendency of things holds for few
months, it will cost the State great deal
more than the Drainage Act to vindicate
the law, and when the worst is over it will
have to be realized that an irreparable
breach has been made in the community,
and that the dangers to be apprehended
from the debris are yet to be provided
against. The plain fact is that the whole
situation has been forced from bad to
worse, and that what now threatens is
more to be deplored than anything that
has occurred previously. With hot passions
and powerful motives urging both sides
forward to physical collision, it is not to
be thought that expressions of reproos or
regret will exercise much influence. The
miners are in the wrong, but they are none
the less likely to persist. 1t is easy to say
that they must be compelled to submit,
but it is for the cool-headed and intelligent
to reflect what this involves, and to ask
themselves whether there remains no way
by which the disastrous progress of this
feud can be averted before it has become
incurable through the splitting of human
blood. It is juneture st which those who
have the responsibility for what is doing
and to be done are bound to proceed with
the utmost prudence and caution.
THE ARAB MASSACRE
The recent massacre of French and other