Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-02-24
HON. j. H. JEWETr REPLIES TO MAYOR
STONE, OF MARYsvILLE.

EDS. RECORD L MON L do not desire to
fill your columns with personal controversies
which do not interest the general reader.
will, however, ask for sufficient space
to answer the article of February 10Th,
over the signature of c. E. Stone in reply to
one of previous date written by myself. 1
regret that the writer considered my article
ungentlemanly. 1t was not so intended.
Nearly everything contained in the article
was said in his presence, before an audience
of two or three hundred in this city, in a
more emphatic manner. He did not say it
was ungentlemanly. He only said that he
could prove that w. H. Parks did offer to do
the work for $4,000 1 will, however, for
the present waive the question of etiquette,
DR.. Stone and myself live near each other,
and we can settle that without recourse to
the columns of newspaper My object in
writing the article was not notoriety or per-
sonal controversy [ yielded reluctantly to
what believed public duty
Article after article had appeared in public
print, anonymous and otherwise, tending to
disparage the work of the Drainage Com
mission, and to render the Act itself IN
popular. No one answered these communi-
to them. 1t was not until communication
over the signature of G. E. Stone, as Mayor
of Marysville, attacking, as L thought, the
character and standing of one occupying a
public position, to which he had been called
by large vote (receiving 49, majority in this
city,, due to a great extent to the stand he
had taken upon the Drainage Act, that /
penned the article in the RECORD UNION.
The representatives for Yuba county were
IL knl ST. Il, e
the Drainage Act, in county at the time
Democratic. [ was an ardent advocate for
the passage of that bill, and am now as
strongly in favor of its retention.
| believed Mr.. Parks character and acts
were assailed for the purpose of weakening
his influence in the support of that bill. 1
believe SO still. And the measure is, as think,
of ouch vital Importance to this section of the
| State that | am not willing silently to SUBJ
nit to what [ consider unjust and unfair
statements. This much for my position.
will now answer the card. l quote: My
statement was correct in every particular ex-
! cept as to the cost of the G-street dam,
which should have been put at 81, GOO in place
Of 81, 900, and was made upon the authority
| of member of the Common Council to
whom the proposition of Mr.. Parks was made,
and who again this evening reiterates that he
and anothe, member of the Common Council
proposed TO do the work for 50 600, and says
! further the first dam did not cost 81, 600 -
| have not trusted to the memory of AL
| dermen on this subject, but have referred to
the record. Mayor Gorham's valedictory
published in the Marysville Appeal April 8,
1872, says that the dam of 1871 cost 81, $40,
and to this amount must be added the labor
of Marshal, policeman, Aldermen and chain
gang, the expenses of which were charged to
other funds. The writer says he was not re-
sponsible if bunglers had charge of the work
after 1871 | do not suppose he was, but the
city was, and paid for it. What still adj
| here to, and can prove by the record, is that
what was done cost more than S6,000 and
| believe more than S., 900, and not a fifth part
of the work proposed by Mr.. Parks was ac-
complished. This, in and of itself, is of no
consequence, only as it is made basis for
| calculating the cost of the present dam
| Upon the basis of 81, 900 this work is made
to cost S51, 600, and these figures are used by
the Bulletin and Chronicle. ] say to them, if
this is your starting point, the dam should
cost $4,000 or 5000, 000 DR.. Stone
| thinks | draw upon my imagination when L
| state that he said dams could not be made
| to stand in the Yuba river. But what ne
| did say was, that DAMS like the State
| dam upon the Yuba and Bear rivers, with
the same foundation, could not be made
to stand This may be the Doctors opinion
now but the opinion l refer to was expressed
| in public meeting before any dams were
built, and he then said, unqualfedly. they
would not stand. My objection to DIR. Stone
lie, that be is fighting the Drainage Act I'M
| fairly, and I know it, and feel it my duty to
state it. Although he may consider it I'm.
gentlemanly to differ with him.
In regard to DIR. Stones friendship w.
| III. Parks, | leave that matter for them to
settle. 1t seems he is not only particular
| friend, but indebted to him for personal
| favors The San Francisco Chronicle says of
DIR. Stones letter to the Sacramento Bee {:
at will set i'll en- Mr.. Parks stomach" If
the letter referred to indicates friendship, it
is at least novel way of showing it.
''Call you that backing of your friends ?
plague upon such backing"
Now, Mr. Editors, hope L have been
| truthful. | have not been discourteous.
| intend to state nothing but what l can verify
At meeting held on last Saturday, by the
Anti-Debris Association, resolution was
| off sred by one of the members indorsing the
| action of our Senator and Assemblymen in sus-
tanning the Debris Act. This resolution was,
| by standing rule, sent to the Committee on
Resolutions and thus suppressed. Among all
| the speakers, and there were many, at that
meeting, but one man declared himself in ia.
vor of repeal. That man was DIR. Stone.
| 90 not WISH TO convey pue ulpFeSslOu tudb
| there were no others in favor Of repeal. l
think, on the contrary, there were few, and
only a few At mass meeting held imme-
diately after, the resolution was passed by
very decided vote. And L claim to repre-
| sent the public sentiment here fairly when l
say it is most pronounced and decided in ia
| vor of retaining the Drainage Act on the stat
ute book as it now is
DIR. Stone says "Mr. Jewett has hobbies
of his own" This is true, and this Drain
age Act is one of them. 1t is recommended
| by the most scientific engineers, at home and
abroad 1t has not been fairly tested. 1t is
scarcely six months since this work was COM
menced; and if the alignment and crest of
the dam are not perfect as DIR. Stone repre-
sents the old dam of 1871, it can be repaired.
1t will be recollected that he stated Of that
dam, that eighteen months after it was built
its alignment and crest were perfect. Accord.
ing to the record before me that dam was
| finished in August, 1871, and September Il,
| 1872, the Marshal was ordered to cut it out
and let the water run, which he did. Query :
Who is it that draws upon his imagination
| for his facts?
| 1 hope to have no further occasion for un-
pleasant criticism. L certainly shall avoid 1t
unless compelled by sense of public duty.
j. II. JEwETT.
! Marysville, February %, 1881.
| r. ,-ol,xoo ,1robo b1,y driven