Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-01-13

| SIc2b CS&t Ct tiiflc udS DCCA SOAs01ASo ~
them, and a great many witnesses have beer
exa,nined as to the amount and extent of tn
gold industry in California. and that eyidanc
being admitted, this would be cumulative
Next, wa object to it on the ground that i
has been admitted at all times in this case
and it will not be denied, that GOLD mining il
California is an important industry. This
then, is 3 useless consumption Of time.
The Court-Of course, if there is no proc
to be introduced on the part of the plaintiff
it seems unnecessary to take up time with it.
Mr.. Belcher-It may be questioned here
after. The Professor has visited all the
counties or nearly all the mining counties in
the State, and he has had an opportunity oi
knowing particularly as to the custom. We
first, then, want to show the extent and char
acter of the mining that is, if it be gold
mining, the extent and character of the
mining whether it is hydraulic or drift
mining, and what was the custom of miners,
if he knows, in that regard, in all those
counties.
The Court do 10. know in regard to
that matter Of custom but what it has been
| admitted
Mr.. Balcher-I do not understand them to
admit that that will close the door to this
examination.
The Court understand that is was ad-
mitted that they dumped into the most ac-
| ceeSlDle Canyons ana raVlQe5.
Mr.. Belcher-Do they admit that that has
! become q custom!
Mr.. Hart-No. sir it is the practice.
| Mr.. Belcher- 1t has become o custom and
has controlled the decisions of the Courts
| The Court-You do not propose to prove
by this witness that the Courts have recog-
nized it,
Mr.. Belcher-No, sir.
The Court-Tha. they have always done it
has already been admitted.
Mr.. Belcher-The purpose we have Of in
| Producing this evidence by this witness is to
| show the extent and universality of that Gus
tom, not only in the few counties right down
here, but throughout the mining counties Of
| the State.
The Court--It would not be moro universal
than that they always have done it. I under
stand that the plaintiffs admit that they have
always done it, but they contend as q legal
proposition that the manner of doing it is ille-
gal. ] do not zee that you can prove any
| thing more than has already been shown.
Mr. Belcher-It might be important to
show the character OF the mining and the
general custom which has prevailed in a very
large number of the counties in this State.
l do not know but that has already been
| proven as to the extent.
| The Court-lt seems to me that everywhere
includes every place.
Mr.. Hart-I do not intsnd to dispute the
testimony of any of those witnesses, and they
have had several on the subject.
The Court-To dispose of it wherever it
was nearest and most convenient, suppose
that is about the extent of it.
| MIR. Cadwalader-That was the way IL was
proven and found in the Keyes case.
The Court never read anything about
that case, not even the decision, but l Judge
from what has been said in this case, that
that is the way in which that question would
| be presented.
| Mr.. Belcher-Then. with the permission of
| the Court, we will reserve the right to make
our offer. simply es to the names of the coun-
ties in which this industry has been and is
carried on, and practically the extent, as, for
instance, in Alpine county, that it is the ex-
| elusive industry, and in some others, il was
partial industry and occupying only small
portion of the people, I will then pass this
| subject.
Mir. Hart-I AIN willing that this witness
shall name the mines without comment.
Mr.. Belcher-I have stated that l desire
| him simply to comment on
| Mr. Hart-I do not want to be compelled
| to cross. examine him on that subject.
| Mr.. Belcher-Name the counties, then,
where mining is carried on.
A.-The counties which | have visited
myself. and where / found the bust
ness of mining carried on, are Del
Norte. SiskiyOu, Humboldt, Shasta, Trim
ity. Plumas, Yuba. Butte. Sierra, Ne
vada, Placer, El Dorado, Sacramento, Anna
dor, Calaveras. Alpine, Tuolnmne, Stauis-
| lsus, Mariposa, MERGED, Fresno. Tulsre,
Mono, San Bsrnardino. Inyo, Kern, San
Diego. San Luis Obispo, and some other
mines in the coast counties, like quicksilver
mines in the neighbC rhood-
Mr.. Hart-You were asked about the gold
mines?
A.-Yes.
Mr.. Belcher-Was Los Angeles named?
Al have not been in any of those mines
and l know them only by hearsay. [ know
that there are some mines in Los Angeles
county.
Odd you name Modoc:
A.-Yes
Q.-And Lsssen!
A.-Yes. Modoc has very small amoun.
OF mining. Modoc and Lassen L have not
visited myself personally. L know there are
mines there.
Mr. Rhodes-Did you mention Santa Cruz
A.-No, sir. had some samples once
from Santa Crnz.
Mr.. Hart-And Judge Rhodes says there
| was mining in San Francisco three years ago.
A-Yes, near the Ocean House, there was
| mining and it paid S3 load; but what is
seen on the dump is mostly brass nails.
| @. 10y Mr. Belcher)-If in your examira-
| tion of mines you have had occasion to exam
| inc or determine, state what is the extent of
the blue gravel deposit, or that deposit that
| is so called.
Mr.. Hart-Where,
Mr.. Bslcher-in this State and in the
counties where he has examined them.
| MIR. Hart-I object TO that. Il is irrele-
want and immaterial and it does not illus
trate any issue or issuable fact in this case. l
object on the further ground that they have
| introduced witness on this subject as to the
extent of what they call the old river chan
| mel, and we do not propose TO controvert what
that witness said on the subject. The testi
mony would be cumulative and irrelevant.
It does not include the mine in controversy.
Mr.. Belcher-Of course it would include
this mine.
Mr. Hart-They may examine as TO the ex-
tent of the blue gravel in the Gold Run mine
and ridge, but as to extending it to the blue
gravel in California, object.
The Court-There is no objection to hia
stating the character of the mines being
worked on the river. We have been inYesti-
eating as TO that.
Mr. Hart-No. sir. But l object to going
into tbs extent of the blue gravel mines in
California that is, the length of what they
call the river beds, and the meanderings of
| them.
The Court made the remark, so that no
one might be misled, that L presume there
will be no objection TO evidence as to the ex-
tent and character of that on this river that
we have been investig ating in this case.
MIR. Belcher-Ths question 1 propose is
much broader than that. It is as to the
length in miles of what is known, so far as he
knows, of what is generally designated as the
blue gravel deposits.
Mr. Hart-Ia' California?
Mr. Belcher-Yes.
The Court-On that general question /
understand there is no controversy.
Mr.. Belcher-I am not aware whether the
length of it was proved by Mr.. Smith or not.
The Court-He gave the value of it and
described where it was located, and he fol.
lowed it on the msp.
MIR. Belcher-I understand that that testi
mony will not be rebutted.
Mr. Hsrt-No, we do not intend to pro.
duce any evidence relating to the ancient
river channels; that is. their length and pres.
ent contents.
Mr. Belcher-As / stated, l am certain in
regard to it, hence will make an offer to
prove by this witness. 1 make the offer and
1 expect that this witness will testify, il
allowed, that the length of the blue gravel
deposits in California is about 400 miles
from his knowledge il is about 400 miles
snd that the yield per mile is about s., 600,
/ e. go