Sacramento daily record-union., 1881-09-28
THE DRAINAGE ACT DECLARED w
CONSTITUTIONAL.

/ that it establishes double taxation, and del
egates unconstitutional powers to local
boards. We do not consider it necessary
tie discuss the arguments of the Court,
since its decision is final, and the invalidity
of the Act will have to be accepted. We
regret this decision, because it appears to
put an end to all hope of adjusting the diff
| ficulties between the miners and the farm.
ers IN any other way than by litigation,
and because also it abolishes the only
means which existed for dealing with the
debris already in the rivers, and which
cannot be touched by any processes of the
Courts. We have believed from the first
that if the Drainage Act was allowed to
stand, and was faithfully administered,
the problem before the people could have
been solved in such way as to secure full
and lasting protection to the agricultural
interest, without necessitatipg the aban-
donment of hydraulic mining. We have,
however, fully recognized the absolute me-
cessity of protecting the farming lands
from the flow of debris, and since the ac.
ton Of the Supreme Court renders the
measures which we believed to be the best,
no longer practicable, nothing remains but
settlement of the question in issue by the
Courts, as speedily as possible
Since it is now evident that litigation is
the only method available for determining
the controversy, the RECORD UNION will
support that recourse, and will urge the
prompt adjudication Of the issue. And now
that the Drainage Act is no longer factor
in the case it becomes necessary to insist
upon thoroughly rational and economical
course in regard to litigation. Thus far
the action taken in the Courts has been
very obviously governed by the desire of
lawyers to enrich themselves, instead of by
a disinterested concern for the public vel
| fare. In fact it has been made apparent
that a speedy decision was the very last
| thing desired. Efforts have been made to
involve as many counties and municipal
tiles as possible in the contest, and it has
been perfectly clear for some time past that
there was an intention to stave off decision
in every possible way until the hunt for
fresh clients had been completed. Now it
il necessary to point out to those
who have been persuaded of the supreme
virtue of injunctions and legal delays, that
there are two sides to that matter. 1t
might be a good thing to secure injunctions
on all the mines, and then delay the settle
ment of the cases. if there was certainty
that the final decision would be in favor of
the plaintiffs. But as no such certainty
exists, it must be clearly understood that
whoever obtain in functions upon mines
render themselves liable to heavy damages
in the event OF the failure of the suits
and the more numerous the iniunctions
the greater will the risk be in this connec.
tion.
Every county and municipality that be-
comes party to these suits, therefore, is
made liable for whatever damages the de.
| PENDANTS may claim should the decision be
favorable to them and the longer the
settlement is delayed the heavier will those
damages be. This is consideration which
cannot be neglected by the farmers or by
the citizens of Sacramento, and it shows
the necessity of pressing the suits already
instituted as rapidly as possible. The
danger of delay, in fact, is far too serious
to be deliberately encountered, and those
who counsel it either fail to comprehend
the situation or are influenced by selfish
motives. In the next place it is necessary
that the most economical course should
be adopted. 1t has been made abundantly
evident that the methods of Mr.. Cad
walader are not calculated to save the
public needless expense. On the con-
trary, he has sought to multiply litigation
as greatly as possible. What is required
now is the adoption of a programme which
will secure the speedy determination of
the controversy as cheaply as possible.
We believe that no difficulty would be
experienced in making up an agreed case
for submission to the Supreme Court, and
that the whole question might be adjudi-
Gated without any delay. The interest of
the miners must render them favorable
to such plan, and, as we have already
shown, the interest of the valley residents
is equally enlisted on the side of prompt
settlement.
This subject must not be viewed from
the standpoint of the lawyers who only
seek to secure as many and as large fees as
possible. The public have a right to de-
mand that their pockets shall be consulted
in whatever arrangements are made. There
is no need for multiplicity of suits. One
suit may be made to settle the whole bust
ness, and at very moderate cost. The
policy of delay ia not in the interest of
the people of this valley at all. It's dan
geross. and may prove ruinously costly,
policy. There IS no question that the
interests OF Sacramento in the matter can
be attended to for one fourth of the sum
which the majority of the Board of Super
visors have been trying to give away. And
it is further apparent that the only way to
put an end to the i'll feeling which has
grown out of this controversy is to obtain
a judicial decision as quickly as possible.
Sacramento certainly has the strongest rea-
son for favoring this course, and it is one
which must commend itself to all who
have any interests at stake. It is to be re.
gretted that the decision of the Supreme
Court leaves the question of the disposi-
tion of the debris already in the streams in
an impracticable condition. There no
longer exists any method of dealing with
this danger. It cannot be reached by the
Courts, and all engineering remedies are of
course put out of the question by the col
lapse of the Drainage Act. This is mat
ter which calls for action, but concerning
which nothing can apparently be done
unless it is done by private means. But
since litigation alone can settle the main
issue, we cannot have it adjudicated too
speedily.
The APACHES.