Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-03-10
DEBTS.
FIFTY EIGHTH DAY OF TIE s.IcKEEs
CASE IN COURT.
Concluding Argument by Attorney General
Hart-The Case is Finally
Submitted.

ddIL-IuS SdSe Is flAduy
Submitted.
At $50 A. NJ yesterday in the case OF The
People VS.. The Gold Run Ditch and Mining
Company, before Judge Temple, Attorney.
General Hart concluded his arguments for
plaintiff he sal 4 that he had already made
the points that the State possessed absolute
control over the navigabls streams except so
far as surrendered, and except SO far as the
right under the Constitution is given to the
Federal Government to regulate commerce,
bu! which gave no authority to obstruct the
streams. Neither the State nor the Federal
Government could directly or otherwise au-
thorize the impairment of streams. That
large landed interests on the streams are
tbreat Q | by the act Of defendant, and that
such damage amounts to taking without
compensation.
IN RESPONSE
To the arguns ents of defendant, on cases
cited, be referred to the same cases to show
thair inapplicabili5y, ard among others called
attention 10 these In 3 Cal 900, involves only
the right Of the State opravide for corstruc
tive possession, etc. In Cal, 80, that an
oveif flow mine is nuisance, and should
be sbat. d. In Cal, 81, that the Federal
Government having reserved public mineral
land, settler thereon is subject to
tie right of entry to mine for the ores.
In Cal, Sc that one in possession un-
der Act of 1852, holds that another may
enter on public lands to extract gold.
La z CAL. 148. that where defendant builds a
- ~, -. r.
responsible, etc. 10 s Cal. 1888 was involved
only acquisiii OF water right by priority.
In 46 Cal, 222. it was admitted that local
customs authorized dam, and, that being
conceded, the Court held it was daDanuns
obsqae injiua9a. but the Court did not pass on
what is q local custom or what established a
custom. But il it is admitted that defend.
AIT has q right to all the water in the
Sierras,
1T DOES NOT FOLLOW
That they may load it with material and send
it down TO destroy navigable streams or phi
vate property. They do not claim a pre-.
emptiye right to the navigable streams. So,
if they own the stream, or have right to
IFS use, then we quote the msxim again-so
uae it as not to injure the property of the
State, or ipjure the rights of riparian owners.
We are not here. he said. TO contest the ques.
ton of prior appropriation, the title to
water, or its reasonable use but do say that,
having and using it, they shall not pour it on
US charged with matter to work cur destruc.
tion.
AS TO DEDICATION.
It is made bylong user or prescription. 1t is
shown TIE Government had no power to ded-
icste the streams to private use, or dedicate
the property of private Individuals 70 like
use. Nothing can be daDilum aJSquc inj,rfa
that is contrary to law, and all Is contrary
to law that violates the maxim sac utere tuo
&c, excapti tits authorized by legislative enact
meat. Bro om's Legal Maxims) The evidence
in tbs ca e is such as give the general cir.
cumstanc5s controlling force and weight. 1t
is unimpprtant that s: me witnesses entertain
the opinion that natural wash exceeds the
deposits Of hydraulic mines, for these opin-
ions are based on.no mathematical knowledge
of the quantities removed. low much by
natural wash or how much by hydraulic
mining. They could not come in either case
within a millioneth part of it. So it is not
expert testimony. It is unimportant, too,
that the Pc and Gauges carry great or less
sediment, or that their watersheds are sub
ject to greater or less erosion. The great and
important facts have been clearly set out and
are as well established as any others written
or unwtitten in the history of California.
Who dreamed that witnesses would come
here and swear that an iron ball will
DEFY THE LAWS OF GRAvITATIoN
And not fall when loosened from sus.
pension, If the Sacramento river illus.
trates the proposition en- which the plaintiff
relies, why go to the Pc or the Ganges? 1t
is complete illustration, and the rivers con-
dition below the points where the streams
come in from the mines, compared to the
condition above such points, proves the
cause and establishes its feet beyond all ques-
ton, and obliterates all comparative show
ings with foreign rivers. Why does not
Stony creek carry debris as do streams be-
low Feather river. though all the things to
create natural wash combine on Stony creek =?
Above the Feather the Sacramento has
farming and stock-ra;sing all along il, ard all
over its watershed snow and rain fall, and
herds Of sheep and cattle roam, and there are
roads and timber destruction, and yet no
debris comes to the river, as below the
Feather. The streams that feed the upps
Sacramento bring to it no debris. Prior to
mis- ing, in thu early 6ays, thu Feather was
as clear as crystal, and so, toe, WIS the
American. What great change TOOK place
so suddenly as to convert these streams into
sewers If debris and leave al the waters
above them still pure The testimony is that
NATURAL WASH NEVER FILLED OR DESTROYED
4 RIVER.
Look at Putah and Cache cracks. The
sediment OF their natural wash goes OF, as in
all cases. TO the meuth, and builds the deltas
Those streams with all their natural GRO
sion remain remarkably clear and PURE.
Why! Because they carry the results of
natural erosion only, and are discolored even
then only in freshets Of extraordinary high
water. But look at the American at its
lowest stage, and see it flowing thick with
mud, loaded with sand, etc. Is erosion goir G
on then, AZ well as in storm water times? 1t
is absurd. Dir. Engineer Smith says the de-
PENDANT puts not over 120, 900 cubic yards q
year into the river. Admit it, and how
then is it defense Suppose it is
tue that our destruction is newt
able from natural causes, shall the
defendant hasten it by artificial causes, and
our mouths be closed in the demand that he
be checked. Wood on Nuisaucss shows that
the rule is that if the defendant contributes
materially to eff cts, largely the result of
natural causes, it is responsible. What,
then. is the material contribution? How
much may defendant contribute to the de
struction of the rivers and the valley, before
the contribution becomes material? Why,
we must take into account all artificial con-
tributions to that effect, and hold defendant
il ha il one of the contributors. Why take
ali into consideration A, B and C do that
which in its combined results destroys rny
property. Now, without AS act, B and C's
wouldn't do the damage; therefore, say de-
PENDANTS. A can't be held; neither can b,
because his act alone would not do the
damage, and so on through the list. Then
they say that the Supreme Court in the
Reyes case held that can't sue A, B and c.
together, because their acts are individual
and separate. What is the result of such 3
doctrine? Why, it cuts off remedies, and A,
b and c, by conspiracy. may
DESTROY THB RIVERS
And all private property and unless we can go
down into the secrets Of that conspiracy and
bring them to light, there should be given no
relief. So we are to look not to the amount
of contribution. but to the final cousumma.
tim; to the thing complained of; and the
Courts must give us a remedy. Concede that
the defendant is the only mining company in
the State; that it puts in the river but
120. 900 cubic yards; add all natural wash,
and then put q private individual st Sscrs.
mento at the end of q street dumping like
matter in amount and quality into the river
yearly. and how long would the Courts per-
-