Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-07-14
A MATTER OF DISQUALIFICATION

1t is as well, when historical statements are
made, that core he taken TO state th.m
correctly. Oar evening contemporary on
Wednesday, in referring to the aspirants Tor
a State Senatorsbip in this county, alleged
tina. Senator Grove L. johnson had pursued
a course friendly to the hydraulic miners,
ami FOR that reason was now Objectionable to
Republican voters; that Z" HE course as the
friend Of the hydraulic miners did not en-
thuse our people toward him during the time
that the issue between them and the farm
ers hung trembling in the balance, etc.
II is thea stated that for that reason the Re-
pubicaus have been casting about for nom.
inee for Senator, and have finally decided
upon Hon. w. c. Van Fleet. Assuming tins
10 be true, the comparison between Mr.. an
Fleet and Mr.. J ohnson is then forced to view,
and examination results in the development
OF the fact that, 90 far the matter men
toned is concerned, the two gentlemen occu-
pied precisely the same grounds. MIR. John,
son voted for the "Ac! TO promote drainage.
When Mr.. Y an Fleet came to the Legislature
he voted eg tinst its repeal, as also did MIR.
johnson. Mr.. Van Fleet acted with MIR.
Parks in all the prolonged fight to prevent
repeal. He voted for the deadlock,
IN apportionment." etc in the interest OF
the nor -repealers. 1t is entirely fair, indeed,
= to state that Mr.. Van Fleet is understood to
claim no special virtues as compared to any
claims OF Mr.. johnson because of the position
either held on the hydraulic mining question.
Nor does he claim that his record in that
matter differs from that Of Mr. johnson. as
il il a fact it does not. His record places him
a friend Of the Debris Act when it was bsfore
the Legislature, and for it on every subsidiary
question that might affect its repeal or non
repeal Precisely the same facts the legisla.
tive record disclOses regarding Senator John.
son. Senator johnson announced thathe voted
for the Act originally, and to sustain 1t
subsequently, as the only means afforded,
preferred or suggested "a remedy tor the
evils of hydraulic mining. The record
shows also that Mr.. johnson introduced
bill into the Senate, and that he lsbored for
the same, to make hydraulic mining a inside
meanor; to prevent under criminal penalties
all persons from using the streams or their
tributaries as dumping places Tor mining 0e-
bris. This bill, had it become law, would, 1t
appears on examination, haye n lde hydraulic
mining Illegal. The bill went TO the proper
committee. Senator johnson, it appears,
made every effort to get il up aud put it on lis
passc sc, and announced that II the Legislature
would pass some such prohibitive act he
would vote for the repeal of the Drainage
Act. Mr.. Van Fleet is understood to say
now that his position was then as herein
stated, and he discleims all intention to run,
ca any auti-hydrarlic legislative record any
farther thsn his record actually shows it to
have been auti-hy draGiic, and that has been
indicated in this article, and is the record of
both the gentlemen named, there being no
dissimilArIty. The examination made into
this bit Of history, with view TO setting the
facts truthfully before the people, and in
jus.ice TO both gentlemen, discloses also that
II q speech in the State Senate, made Febru-
AIRY s, 1881, Senator Grove l. johnson stated
his position unequivocally. His words were
- As | said upon the floor Of the Senate at
tac last session, in the opening of the speech
| intended to deliver, but which sickness
compelled me TO cut short, l was not then in
favor of the bill as it stood, and l simply
voted for it as an experimental measure. |
desire to say now that | am not in favor of
this Debris Act, so called, as it stands that
personality | would wish to have it either
changed or wiped from the books and other
Acts take lis place, and that my ideas upon
this subject are somewhat in accord with
those Of the Senator from Santa Clara MIR.
Baker, and that, like him, | shall endesvor
to carry out the views of my immediate con-
sLllutuIs. AtSluSnJS III CITY anu
county, upon this important and oveTshadow-
ing issue. My personal views upon this ques-
ton are briefly these: Had | the power to
shape the legislation of this Senate and As
sembly would prepare bill containing two
propositions. and two only. One would be
that from this time henceforward no hy-
draulic or other miner should be permitted
to run the tailiugs of his mine into or upon
any stream of water within the State Of Cal
ifornia second, that the State of California
should undertake. the work o; leveeing the
rivers OF the State and dredging out their
channels, SO As to restore the rivers to their
normal condition before hydraulic mining
was carried on in the State of California.
There is my position upon the subject"