Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-04-01
The GOLD RUN CASE.
Closing Argument of Attorney Gen
eral a. L. Hart, in the Case of The
People VS.. The Gold Run Ditch
and Mining Company.


Reported for the RECORD UNION by Winfield ].
Davis and William NJ Cutter.l
We present to our readers full report Of
the closing argument of Attorney General A.
l.. Hart, in the case of The People VS.. The
Gold Run Ditch and Mining Company, de-
Iivered before Judge Temple recently. It
contains an exhaustive review Of the entire
subject, ard will be read with interest by
those who feel concerned in the important
question involved in the case:
May it Please your Honor: I shall promise to be
brief in the argument of this case / did not ex-
pect when l became an attorney ia this case, on
behalf OF nv Client the State, that was TO be tried
instead Of the which is here for your HOnOrs
consideration. And willie DO not consider the fact
to be one possessing much significance, may be
pardOned Tor aging that have noticed strong re-
semblance in the argument which was made by the
last attorney lr. Wallace) who has addressed this
Court upon the powers OF the Accomplishment, to
views which | have heretofore read. | confess
that when this preceding first brought
to my attention, and wien acting as the at
torney OF the State, first asked to in
sttute an action involving such vast consequences
l hesitated long, and Insisted, on my own
part and on behalf of the people that
was called upon to represent VI on the right TO con
slider well before ling 50. then appreciated as
appreciate to-day, what may be the consequences OF
n declaration of the law rs understand it. In en-
teribg into this contest, in taking part in the pro-
ceedngs that were had upon the trial OF this case
thing which | hive not done heretofore IN pro-
ceedngs instituted upon petition presented at my
ofice-I believe that was acting with an impartial
ity such may be required from an officer repre-
senting the entire people. / am free TO say that,
had it been for the fact that this case involved
consequences that might seriously affect large com
nunites, | should never have appeared in this
Courtroom for the purpose OF taking part in these
proceedings for the purpose of becoming active
Iy engaged in the prosecution OF one side or the
other. But from the beginning of this proceed g l
have recognized his as beg case involving inter
ests OF such nature that it NY duty to appear
before your Honor and insist upon the trial OF 1t
UPON ITS BROAD MERITS,
Without reference to technicalities. And it was
with the view of doing that, well for the protee-
ton OF the clients of my friend, Judge Wallace, as
for the protection of those upon the other side that
appeared in this case, and insisted that no mere
technical rule of law should be used for the purpose
oil denying TO the one party night upon the merits
or granting to the other party a corresponding
right And hence it is that the thing of which SO
much complaint has been made by the learned at
torney on the other side, my participation in the
trial OF this cause has been done by me, not with a
view of undertaking to Cypress section, but with
q view to protesting the very individuals who have
endeavOred in this proceeding to question the pro
prety of my conduct In the discussion OF the legal
questions that arose in this case, intend to en-
deayor 70 present to your Honor my own calm judg
ment, my opinions that formed al the time when
tie parties ietitiouins fer relief came to me COM
planning OF what they believed to be wrong and ask
ing for the commencement Of the action; these
opinions which induced me to allow this action t.
proceed, and which have induced me to insist upon
the rights Of the people in this CAGE
1t is claimed upon the other side, that the Attor-
ney.General has power t. bring this action A
vast field Of discussion has been passe over by the
counsel ON Questions which in their
f-t,f ui,,V,4d
Judgment be ad ressed 10 judicial tribunal, have
been elabOrstsly presented to your Honor for con-
sderation. ANA at all times duriI this proceeding
it seems 10 that counsel have tried to disguise
the OF the proceeding and the nature OF the
parties who appear before your Honor asking for
your judgment
1t is insisted that this is action prosecuted by
one community against another. This allegation
upon the part Of the defense most emphatically
deny. deny that any community in this State is
managing this action that any community in this
State has had anything to dowth shaping its course
the policy Of those who have been controlling it.
conceds that there have been counsel employed
in this action whe have been employed with view
of representing particular community.
But when the nature of the case is considered,
when consider the title Of the action, the aega
tions in the complaint and the nature of the relief
that is asked cannot fail to know that this is
suit by the people and for the people of California ;
that it is not behalf of aricultu lists that is
not one on behalf of miners that it is not one
against agricuturists, that it IS not one against
1
deavoring to submit to your Honor a Chancellor
having and exercising equitable powers the question
TO whether not, the facts being conceded, the
plaintiff is entitled decree against the continu
Of the alleged existing evil as public nuisance
and hence wrong against the entire people of the
State
1t is question which involves not the interests
OF miners as a class because we make no allegation
against miners. 1t is an action which involves not
the interests OF the miners as sn entirety because
there is but one company IN this that are
alleging these wrongs against. Now could under
stand very well how counsel, if this had been an
action in the nature q the case of Reyes against the
Little York Mining Company, might have argued
that it against the mining industry; that it in
YOlved all the mines in the State asd that the in
eytabe CO sequence OF decree in the action would
be to establish rule under which mining could not
be prosecuted.
NATURE OF THE ACTION.
But this ease is a proceeding against the
Gold Run Ditch and Mining Company. IL is a
proceeding against defendant not the people OF
a section, but a corporation, in which aege that
this corporation is Oommi ting ard threatening to
commit acts whi9l We believe to be Illegal. and
hence which we believe should not be permitted to
be continued. IL is action against corporation,
alege, and as shall undertake to establish to
your H)uor, for infringement Of the right Of the
people IN the public navigable streams without any
authority OF law. Ii is ion for an invasion Of
the rights Of the whole people in the navgable
streams Of which the State is the owner by virtue
OF its sovereignty 1t is an action in which We are
Insisting that the corporation defendant has right
to encrOaeh upon the rights Of the people in the
States public thoroughfares
Counsel for the defendant insists that this action
should not be maintained, because the questions In
yolyed address themselves properly to depart
ment exercising political, as distinguished from
Judicial powers
fail 70 understand row 1t Is that In this case-an
action Ike any other alleging the existence OF pub
lie wroug-they appear before tbs Court and
undertake N make pohdoalquestion OF 1t because
there are other men doing the same thing;
because this wrong is so far reaching in its territorial
extent and u the number Of people who are pursu-
ing 1t. that IL should be made the sui ject of the
exercise OF political power, and that by reason
OF the grea, number OF people that are en-
gagged in it, II should not be within the reach
Of judicial decree. | fail to understand how
man who might be arrested for
crime under the criminal law If this State should
be granted immunity from the pu1ishment pro-
nounced by the law for such Offelse because many
Others were committing the safne crime. fail 10
comprehend the theory upon which the defense in
this action ask that the judicial power Of the gov
eminent be not interposed simply because 1t is de-
ing that which il being done by so many people as
10 call foT the ln:erpoetion OF legislative and not Judi
Cial power. II in this case there has been wrong
committed against the State, they have 70
right to ask your Honor 10 stay the arm OF the
judiciary than wsuld a nan have who, extending
his operations ia the commission Of crime ng linst
the government Of this State, might indulge in rob
berry from the north - the south, engaging vast
number Of people In the execution Of has crimes.
The clse would be alike in the principles involved.
THE QUESTION
Which must eventually address Itself to your Honor
for jud ment-the question upon which your Honor
must eventually pass-is. whether or not the act
which We charge against the defendant is Illegal.
Ii It DO illegsl-thOngh the entire people OF tfjs
country might be engaged in that Illegal pu suit
being az inst law your Honor under the solemn
sanction Of your judicial oath, Will be compelled to
enforce the law though the State may fall under
take 70 say that Shers there has been violation Of
law the fact that many men have violated il IS no
why the judicial power should not be per
United to be exercised that the extent Of CRIME
or tho extent Of wrong that may be committed
within the boundaries of the State IL no reason why
the judicial power should be paraiyIed And hence
IL Is that have failed TO comprehend upon what
theory the learned counsel for the dee, ant in this
case could ever he induced 20 come before
your Honor and ask that judicial question,
purely judicial question, Of this nature
shsll be taken from your Honor ADD placed in the
hands Of the Legislature, body which has already
acted upon the matter simply because Of the extent
OF the wrongs that are bepg committed in the State.
This case presents itself simply in this form 10
That here Is a corporation which Is committing an
act in violation Of the laws Of the State an act
which must ultimately destroy our nAysable
lands along those streams, extending the injuries
over such an extent Of territory, hat within the
provisions Of our Code in relation to wrongs and
injuries affecting considerable number of persona
makes 1t public nuisance not only as being OBJ
struction of navigable s.resn, but a public NUS
ance, as being an injury TO considerable number