Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-03-09
DEBRIS.
FIaIY-sEvENrE DAY OF TIE sLIcKENs
CASE IN COURT.
Arguments of Judge Wallace and Attor-
neY-Gsneral Fart Before
Judge Temple.

The arguments in the case of the People
vs.. the Gold Run Ditch and Mining Company
we're resumed before Judge Temple st $50
a. NJ. yesterday. Judge Wallace, for defend
ant, resumed. He considered the question
Of custom, quoting the old maxim, " Custom
is tae best interpreter of the law" What is
done under the law, without complaint, is the
law. He cited authorities in support He
considered also the doctrine Unreasonable use,
and submitted authorities thereon. He held
that the doctrine OF reasonable use is an H.
tegral part of the law of riparian rights. As
to the new case from Maryland cited by Mr..
Bayne, concerning the butcher who added
but fifteen buckets Of blood per week to a
stream and was held responsible a con-
tributor he said IL did not harm defendants
case. Ia Reyes VS.. Little York, the ques-
ton was one of ioiadsr. It united independ-
ent actors and nj joiader was held, for inde-
pendent actors were su1d together. If they
were several contributors, and yet each re.
sp lns;ble for the common result, they should
have been j .ined in the bill. Now in the
Marylanl case it is held
DIRECTLY OPPOSITE
To the view of the Supreme Court of Cali
forpis in the Keyes case. 1T Us you may
JOIN all when the acts Of one alone would
net constitute nuisance, while the Supreme
Court of California holds that no man she'll
be held responsible for the independent acts
of another, and the latter is rational view.
He then reviewed the Chippewa river case.
wis. LIST. FEDERAL Reporter.) 1t was navi-
gable stream, but the boom" company
i - I'D -,
fl )od-gates, hold back the waters for days and
days; then suddenly open them and send
down food, crushing boats and destroying
property, ETC., and yet the Court refused to
restrain. All the rules that rest upon
estoppel in pals apply to the Government
when it comes into Court.
Judge Temple here iuterposed question
as to what is the power over the streams ex
ercised by the Federal Government. Is it
the same as over the public lands? Is one
not proprietary right ard the other only a
governmental one?
Judge Wallace said it was something like
the old English jus pfirdtun and jus putt'
cum.
Judge Temple thought the parallel not ex-
act, as in the English books the one applied only
to fisheries along the tide lands, etc.
Judge Wallace replied The State receives
TIE rivers not only for the purposes of navi-
CATION, but for the purposes of commerce.
Navigation is only one of the means of CON-
merce. Gold production bsars closer rela-
ton TO commerce than the mere use Of boats
On a stream in navigation. Suppose 10 Con-
gress to day they say, Seehere. thatSacramento
river is nsvigabls; it must be preserved; mic
ing is injnring it: Bat, says one, behind
mining is sis, 100000 or s., 900, GOO, 600 of
gold. Then to the Eastern Congressman, I'm.
affected by local interests. the question would
be, Is the Sacramento river worth that for
navigation Hadn't we better give it up for
this gold? Judge Wallace wished to be uu-
derstood clearly as not holding such views
himself. or even suggesting such dismantling
Of California. but that is what an Eastern
in the interest # commerce might
we'll gay. He next considered as to what
could be tie decree if against the defendant.
1t brings up all