Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-04-15

Mr.. Cstlin-Wish your Honor's permits
sion. and at the request of my associates, l
propose to occupy an hour or so In consider
ing some parts of this case. | shall not, ex-
cept possibly in very general way, say any
thing about the law applicable to the facts.
I deem. il most essential, whatever disputes
there nay be in regard TO the law, and how
ever difficult it may be TO solve them, that
the facts of the case, to which the law, what
ever i. may be, is to be applied, must be first
ascertsined with some certainty.
From the beginning of this case, up even
to this present time, there has been, as
think, much exaggeration both on the part of
the witnesses, in many instances, and on the
part Of counsel, in all instances, in stating
what the alleged grievances are that are com.
planned OF. Stating them in general way,
as I will be obliged to do in anything like a
brief argument. they complain, first, that the
navigation of the rivers has been destroyed,
or al least has been nearly destroyed, and if
mining is suffered to continue-especi-
ally il this defendant is suffered to con-
tiaue its mining operations-the navigation
of the Sacramento river will be destroyed.
They say, furthermore, that in consequence
of mining the roads have been injured, and
that, IL mining is to be continued, and especi-
ally II this defendant is to prosecute its work
further. the roads will be destroyed. They
next claim that extensive injuries have been
laI iar1y I'D in fheir riyot.o
of these injuries they have taken into consid-
Grafton everything that has occurred, as the
result of all causes during the last thirty
three years; but they point out certain in
juries which they claim to be due to mining
operations such as defendant carries Oh, andsay
if such mining is suffered to continue these il
iuries will increase to an intoerable extent
They further claim that the public health has
been seriously affected by the results of min
ing operations. 1 suppose those are the
prominent features of the complaint, and
that they embrace all the details of the evils
complaiaed of.
Now. for the purpose of avoiding falling
into errors in regard to the extent of
these alleged evils, to ascertain how, and
how far lands have been injured,
from what causes they have been injured,
and to what extent the navigation of the
river aud the public health has been injured
and the causes of such injuries, 1 propose to
examine some of the evidence. Or course it
will be impossible to examine the evidence
very extensively and in detail. but propose
to meet some of the propositions that they
make. OF course they marshaled all their
evidence &c one objective point, to make it
appear that this defendant has ia the past
beer euc aged in and is now committing these
injuries, and will continue to commit them.
In order to make that argument effective
they try TO dispose of all causes for these eff
fects. except the one alleged cause-that is,
this defendant. They tell US tina, the floods
of 1852 did no injury that the big floods
of 1862 did no injury. They concede that
it was a large fl BOD. and that il brought down,
debris OF sedimentary deposits of some kind !;
but they say that the debris of the
food Of 1861 and 1862 did not iujure
anybody; that it brought down
not this material of which they complain,
but sort OF loamy deposit that was bsnef-
cisl rather than injurious. Why do they say
this They saw it because it leads to the
proposition which they must establish as
matter of fact in order to raise the legal ques-
tons involved in the maintenance of their
case that is, that the mining done by this
defendant during the last six years, say com
mencing in 1875, and especially its mining
within the last three years, produced the in
juries complained of. They say if defendant
continues It's peculiar method of mining the
certain alleged specific injuries complained Of
will be perpetuated. Wherefore they en-
deav0r TO dispose of all other causes, and, in
80 doing, apologize for all other kinds Of min
in? and all other floods, except the foods of
1873 and 1881. They say: Here are the
facts. Here is Mr.. RoOnsy's land, covered
with sediment two or three feet deep. We
change that upon this defendant We say it
has been proven in this case that the foods
Of 1861 and 1862 did us no harm" They say
further: " We do not complain Of any ki1d
of mining except the particular kind
of mining carried on by this defendant" 81
Though il appears in evidence thatquartz min
ing, and stamp mining upon csmented gravel
another distinct class OF mining-are carried
on extensively and contribute very largely
TO tha5 fine character Of sediment OF the
rivers which is carried down a great dis
lance; that there is still going on. within the
water shed Of the American, all kinds of old
time Placer mining, such surface mining,
bank mining, sluice mining and mining In
the gravel banks Of the river and its branches
and tributaries variously differing in their
methods from that practiced by the defend
ant, bl5 immensely greater in extent. when
taken IL the aggregate. They say: 1--WE do
not CONF plain of that, but on the contrary,
that kind OF mining is not injurious, and we
ask no relief against it. We do not wish to
stop il. II it be true that within the scope of
our Gapiaint and its prayer we have charged
injury a. al classes of mining, we neverthe-
less protest in argument, and by solemn aver
msnt before the Court, that quartz mining,
drifs mining, seam mining and sluics min
ing are not Injurious Mr. Cadwalader en-
phasizes the earuestness of these declarations
by complaining of us for 'atsributing such
atrocious intentions to the people of the val
ley" 1t seems to me this is a confession
which We have q right to hold them TO, and
which most etfectually dispcsss of their case.
a fair consideration of all the testimony
must, I think, convince the mind of the
Court that the fine material contributed to
these rivers at both high aud low water.
which Is carried down great distances ard
is deposited here and there upon the banks in
part and in part in the beds Of the rivers,
and come Of it in Suisun bay, does not come
FROM the mine Of the defendant in a degree to
be apprsciable, but that it does very largely
come from those other sources which they
say Greats no injury. They not only say
that they do not complain against such
miners, but they declare that such mining is
not nuisance. II that is not a nuisance
and their warrant that it is not ought to be
sufficient then it inevitably follows that the
work done by the defendant upon the deep
blue gravel channel is not o nuisance.
There &c an inconsistency here go extreme
rs 10 be IL SOlerable IN Court OF justice. In
one breath the counsel says we ask not to
stop sluice miners, quartz miners, drift
miners IN fact, no kidd of miners except
hydraulic miners, and only those hydraulic
r'iners who economize labor by the use OF
monitors and little giants We desire an
opportunity to assure them that " the people
of the valley, as he calls the individuals who
ins,igste this suit, will rot interfere with
them These fervid declarations have
scarcely time TO cool before we hear the de-
maRd 10. clear water as the sine Qua non "of
the people Of the valley" az We must have
the cleaT mountain water; this we demand
in behalf Of the farmers on the banks of the
American and Sacramento rivers"
If there is any fact established by evidence
in this case if the history of mining in this
State teaches anything, it is that the kind of
mining which Mr.. Cadwalader's heart yearns
TO embrace with loving assurance Of his
eternal regard and pledge of protection pol
lutes, and ever since mining began has pol
luted the clear mountain streams tenfold
more IL degree than it is possible for
all the monitors and little giants now
in use upon blue gravel to effect
and if from the defendants mine there are
washed only 5000 cubic yards a year of the
material, the character of which has been
fully described by all the witnesses-and there