Sacramento daily record-union., 1881-11-15
THE COMPROMISE coNvEsT1or.


OF miners and farmers proposed by the
committee of the San Francisco Board of
Trade, to be held next Thursday in San
Francisco. Certainly this is the wisest
course the Anti. Debris Association can take
under the circumstances. The farmers per-
ceive clearly enough that the one deliver
anee for them lies in the stoppage of the
flow Of debris into the rivers. Whether
this stcppage is effected by the impounding
OF the debris or by the cessation of mining
can make no difference to those who are
injured by it, and therefore it is for them
to employ the methods which promise to
effect their purpose most speedily and
effectually. The farmers were led to be-
lieve that litigation was the quickest aud
surest means of protecting themselves, and
they have now had some experience OF
that recourse. They must realize by this
time that relief through the Courts is at
best uncertain and tedious. Up to the
present moment they have virtually failed
to make any progress. They thought
they had succeeded in getting the by.
draulic mines stopped from working, but
they have now learned that the law
enables both parties to an issue to employ
the same machinery, and that injunctions
can be had to prevent injunctions from
taking effect, among other purposes. AS
the case stands it is in short perfectly
clear, first, that litigation has done nothing
towards providing relief from the debris,
and, second, that it is impossible to say
how long this relief will have to be waited
| for, or whether it can be obtained at all.
Nothing in fact can be more doubtful or
full of uncertainty than the legal sitaa-
ton. Lawyers who are interested in keep.
ing the ball rolling may perhaps be willing
to hold out groundless hopes to their
clients, but dispassionate observers who
have watched the proceedings clearly can
see no reasons for expecting a speedy end
to the suits.
Meantime it is necessary to point out
thai the attempt to enjoin the miners lin
Nevada county st least) has so far been a
failure, and that the debris is still being
sent down. In this state of affairs the
farmers must in justice to themselves take
the proposal of the San Francisco Board OF
Trade into serious consideration. Ii they
reject it, and after having done 60 find
that the Courts will afford them no redress,
they will have nothing before them but
ruin. They cannot, therefore, afford to
trust everything to the obviously uncer-
tain issue of litigation, but they ought to
take advantage of the proposal of the
Board of Trade, and the more readily since
they can do SO entirely without prejudice
to the pending suits. To refuse to send
representatives to the proposed Convention,
moreover, would be to indicate desire fer
revenga rather than for protection. It
would naturally be interpreted as decla-
ration of their purpose TO rest satisfied
with nothing short of the absolute destruc-
ton of the hydraulic mining interest. To
take such position as this would be alike
impolitic and unreasonable, since there is
no assurance that the stoppage of hydraulic
mining can be compassed by litigation, and
since, if it is not compassed after the
farmers have taken so extreme position,
they are liable to lose the sympathy of the
community subsequently, and precisely
when they will need it the most.
The arrangement of compromise, as
the. case stands, is the only rational pro.
gramme. Neither side has enough to ex-
pect from protracted litigation to make
that course the most desirable one. Neither
side can have any real confidence in the
outcome of that kind of contest. But
both sides have strong reasons for seeking
a speedy adjustment of the cause, for both
have much to lose by procrastination
While the slow and dubious process of the
Courts is going on, the debris is being
poured into the streams, and as winter ap-
proaches the danger to the valley lands in
creases every day. The miners, however,
have practically expressed their readiness
to take care of this debris hereafter, if the
farmers will content themselves with that,
and if this undertaking is carried out faith
fully there can be no doubt that it offers
solution of the problem such as may not
be reached in ten years by litigation. In
fact the difference between the two
methods of procedure is that whereas one
only holds Out doubtful and indefinite
prospect of possible relief at some un-
known period in the future, the other
promises speedy, definite and complete re-
lief, and this apparently without further
cost to the farmers.
There can be no excuse for rejecting the
opportunity to arrange such compromise.
The Anti-Debris Association certainly can
not properly guard the interests of its
members unless it sends delegates to the
Compromise Convention. Of course it will
not be bound TO accept the propositions
made there, but we think that it is bound
to ascertain what terms the miners are
prepared to offer. 1t is also very clear
that the miners possess the power to stop
the flow of debris, whereas all the at
tempts thus far made to get such power
exercised by the Courts have sigually
failed. The end sought being the cessa-
ton of the debris flow, it is mere common
sense to take the straightest road to that
end, and this straightest road lies through
the Compromise Convention. 1t is unfor-
tunately the case that since the failure of
the Drainage Act there remain no means
of holding back the great quantity of de-
bris already in the canyons and river
channels. This cannot be dealt with either
by injunotions or suits or compromises,
and the one fact that it is beyond the ju-
risdiction of any tribunals which can now
be appealed TO demonstrates the wisdom of