Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-02-21

Dill anu aG IedSG lOur Vi tuose VIII
"voted in the negative and two of the
"four absentees, would also vote for it.
Thus it will be seen that there are at
least twenty-sx votes in the Senate in
favor of Senate Bill No. 347, which, it is
Z" claimed, would virtually put a stop to
"hydraulic mining" We now propose to
show that the vote cited by Senator Hill
was not test of the views of the Senate
in regard to the stoppage of hydraulic
mining, and that consequently the Sena-
tors charge of recklessness against this
journal recoils upon himself.
In the first place it is necessary to ascer-
tain what Senate Bill No. 347 proposes.
Senator Hills reference to it would justify
the inference that it is bill to stop n.y.
draulic mining, whereas, in fact, it involves
no such conclusion. 1t is entitled An
50 Act to amend Section 3S2 of an Act en-
Z" titled An Act to establish a Code Of
"' Civil Procedure, approved March IL.
&c 1872, relating to parties to civil actions"
The original Section $50 is as follows
"Of the parties to the action those who
sc are united in interest must be joined as
sent of any one who should have been
''ioined as plaintiff cannot be obtained,
he may be made defendant, the reason
" thereof being stated in the complaint !;
Z" and when the question is one of a COM
"mon or general interest of many persons,
g or when the parties are numerous, and
I" it is impracticable to bring them all
"before the Court, one or more may sue
'' or defend for the benefit of ALL The
amendment proposed is as follows In
actions to abate nuisance, or for an in
junction to prevent the commission or
" continuance of acts creating a nuisance,
g all persons contributing to the creation
" of or continuance of the nuisance com.
planned of may be joined as defendants.
The intent of this bill is to overcome
supposed defect in the law under which
an attempt was made in 1879 to obtain an
injunction against the hydraulic miners.
In that case the Supreme Court ruled that
there had been misioinder of parties.
The ground on which the plaintiffs were de-
feated was in effect that their counsel had
failed, in drawing the complaint, to show
community of interest or concert of action
between the defendants. In other words,
the case failed through the error of the
plaintiffs attorney, and now Senator
Davis has brought in bill intended to
cover that error. The wisdom of legisla-
tive endeavors to prevent lawyers from
laundering is certainly questionable. The
Court intimated at the time that if the
complaint had been drawn as it should
have been drawn, the case would not have
gone off on this point Perhaps the Legis-
lature had better pass a general law to
protect litigants in advance against the
errors and omissions of counsel, but I'M
less this can be done it is difficult to per-
ceive how any special statute can guaran-
tee immunity from such blunders.
Senate Bill No. 347, however, evidently
is not bill to stop hydraulic mining. 1t
is merely bill to enable plaintiffs to Sc
cure the opportunity to have their cases
heard. Senator Hill is certainly guilty of
extreme recklessness when he intimates
that the passage of this bill would vir-
tually put a stop to hydraulic mining"
1t would obviously do nothing of the kind.
1t might prevent the attorney from
making particular blunder second time,
but it assuredly would not limit his capa-
city for laundering in all other directions.
1t is very easy to see how many Senators
who are adverse to any measure proposing
the stoppage of hydraulic mining might be
willing to vote for such bill as this but
a curious circumstance is that Senator Hill
himself has already voted on two occasions
(the 10Th and 18th instantly against this
very bill for which he claims that there is
so much sympathy among the anti-debris
members. a little explanation on this
head would seem to he in order before the
Senator undertakes to question our state
ments again.
Senator Hills own position on this bill
may be taken as Indicative of the general
disposition of members. If he, who has
been so active an opponent of the debris
bill, is not willing to help measure which
merely gives the victims of hydraulic min
ing their day in Court, how can it be ex-
pected that members less interested in the
repeal of the debris bill can be got to take
strong ground against the continuance of
hydraulic mining? We believe, after care
full inquiry made since writing the article
which Mr.. Hill has sought to controvert
that we have rather understated the real
position. We believe that it would proba-
bly, not be possible to secure anything like
ten votes in the Senate for bill squarely
proposing the stoppage of hydraulic min
ing. In fact leading member of the
Senate informed us only yesterday that he
doubted whether single Uote could be had
for such bill. This, then, is the situa-
ton towards which all those sufferers from
hydraulic mining who favor the repeal of
the debris bill are drifting. Should they
succeed they would find that they had de-
stroyed the only avenue of relief now open
to them, and that they would be exposed |
thenceforward to the unchecked action of |
the hydraulic process, with no possible re-
course but the slow, costly and uncertain
action of the Courts.