Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-03-10

snnuslly from the hills? They say for sore
years they have been working 10 the eeep
blue gravel, as has the Iowa Hill mine, and
the matter worked out by both has caught
and lodged in the American river between
Rice's Bridge and PIckeTing's Bar. They
point to the North Ssar dam, on Bear river,
TO show that suca material will not C me
down. But examination showed that the ma
terial Of the North Star mine was of such
character and size that water would not carry
it from the mine, but that it had to be lifted
out by mechanical means. But the material
in defendants pine, it was proven, is all
easily carried { IF by the water used in the
mine, and that the cement carrying the
blue gravel was pulverized to get az the gold.
and thus sent out as a sand. Who says
it won't come down? Why that great chem
list and doctor and mining expert, who de-
clares that it re csments in the river, and yet
more, that it makes excellent manure for
farming lands, aud he based that statement
en- a higher law, which he couldn't under.
stand ? Why, they say they find all the ma
terial in the stream with the interstices all
filled up with sand. Whence cslne the sand?
and when the interstices were filled. where
went the sand that thereafter came? Con-
cede that the interstices are so filled, it is in
proof that from the mines come other sands
pouring down on this alleged mass in the
stream. But Engineer Uren, defendants
witness,
COULD NOT SWEAR
That he ever saw any of the blue gravel in
the stream, as is charged. Mr. Skidmore, the
defendants employee superintendent
would net testify that it wouldn't come
down Even Mr. Smith diin's testify to it.
Well, Mr.. Skidmore said that for 80 feet from
the bedrock there is blue gravel, and as you
so down into the pit the cement is harder,
but above the gravel is clear line of distinc-
ton between the kinds of material, and as
you go up there is No. 2, and from that up to
soil OF the color of postal card, and easily
washed. So. too, eaid other witnesses. Coun-
sci described the tall pyramids left in the
mine supported by rock. Now it is proven
that all but 10 600 600 yards of the matter
taken from the mine has come down the
river to and below Folsom, and on into the
river below. When floods again sweep the
canyonsit will be found that all the material in
them will again be SWEEP. out. But while
with one breath they say it don't come down,
with the next they say there is so much ma
terial in the mountains that it will eventually
overwhelm US anyhow. and we might as we'll
sit down and take it, even if they hasten the
event somewhat. They tell US our remedy
must come from
THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
Of the Government. They say the law is
with us, and the Court must administer the
law as it is. The Attorney General cannot
change the policy of the State He does not
attempt to do so. The policy of the State
was determined when solemnlY and by ex.
press contract it dedicated the rivers to the
uses of commerce ard to free navigation for
ever, and chat they should not be obstructed
That policy has never been changed, and it
stands as the law of the State to-day, and IS
such it must be administered. TIE Attor.
ney General is elected to do duties laid down
by the policy of the State by its Constitution
ano the laws, and as he finds them he must
enforce them.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
But it is said the il lry has been of such
leog standing that we may not question it
now. In l Law Reps, Eq CASES, vol. 1, it
is said an injury was done to the lakes of
party. and the Court held 1t extended to the
lands, and the Cont adds that il the agri.
cultuIist had complained at an early day it
was so small an injury then as not to he
shown but he waited till it was clearly an
injury. and had become NUISANCE, and then
the defendant says, You can't sue now, be-
cause you have waited too long. The Court
says when the pollution is increasing from
time TO time, those who pollute the waters
cannot claim pres eription to do it by lapse
OF tina. If the theory of defendant is cor
rect, how long before its prescriptivs right
shall cease? How long must we sit rened-
less? How deep must the valley be filled in
How high above the dome of the Capitol
may they pile the Sierra soil? Why,
if their doctrioe be correct, they
may ELL the valley 10 900 feet Deep ard till
the people shall be driven from every home,
before their right shall cease from its own
monstrous wrong.
Broadbent vs The Imperial Gas Company
q Decay, Men. & G., 1922. is strong case
It is held that the Court will not determine
how lorg il would be convenient to have the
gas making go on, and that the plaintiff must
go to law for remedy. Whatever may be
the effect of the il Junction as to lighting the
parish with gas, the Court would not con.
slider.
In Attorney. General vs.. Council of Bir-
mingham (Eng.) "A Kay & johnson, 53Sj,
says the Curt it is clear the relief asked
should be granted. That was a case where
city
CLAIMED BY PRESCRIPTION
And by grant by Parliament, to run is
sewage into a river that entered az
other river below, that in turn ran
along the gardens of the plaintiffs, and
the question was as to the reEoteness of the
damage. 1t was urged that there were % 600
inhabitants in birmingham, and that that
fact should be considered, and the magnitude
Of their interests in tie matter be weighed.
But says the ChaEcellor, then in the case of
an Individual claiming to have his private
rights protected, the question is, he's he
rights, and should he have relief? And it is
a matter of almost absolute indifference
whether the decree will affect %, COO people.
| or one man maintaining a factory. That is
matter for the Legislature. Birmingham
ha. ~ III NJ ~ t1or he, IL
individual. The plaintiff had right to en-.
joy the river, and have it as it was when it
flowed unpolluted, so that his cattle may
drink of it, and fish live in it, and to have
the river just as it was before the grant was
made to the city of Birmingham. That case
DETERMINES THE QUESTION
Here, az to the interest involved be-
ing a factor in the case, and the
great amount of wealth invested in
the work, the effects of which are complained
of. 1t holds, too, the grand principle up
tn view that an unauthorized statutory grant
shall not prevail against the plaintiffs orig
inal right, and there il, to that extent, limi-
tation upon the legislative authority, and
that though there is no such limitation in ex.
tent as ia tbs United States, plaintiffs right
in the case cited was that of riparian pro.
prietor, and the Court refused to let his
property be takep, even By Parliament, with.
out compensation. But here the Conslitu-
ton limits the power to il jlre or effect prop.
psrty, ard ths Legislature and Congress
combined have rot the power to infringe
upon or injure it. But they say, "Wait,
wait, and the legislature will apply remedy
for all the wrong you claim here"
WHO SHALL WAIT?
The farmer? Is be sending the soil of his
farm up to destroy the mines of the defend.
ant A? Shall ne wait who is doing nc wrong, ard
in the meantime the other go on and do new
and continued damage, or shall the innocent
patty have present relief? We have shown
that public and private property is being in
jured; that it is continuing injury that
defendant is contributing to it; that its act
is an illegal act Ii it desires TO appeal to
the political department of the Government,
let il cease from its &C. that damages us, and
itself await the appeal to that department
Let it once be known that capital shall rot
knock down the mountain to get the grain Of
gold, and do it with small employment of Ia
Dor, and genius will devise some plan for get
ting the I'D ia way that may permit the
mining to go Cd in legal way.
AT 11:30 A NJ. General Hart concluded his