Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-02-21
DECLINED TO PUBLISH.

EDS. RECORD UNION: A communication,
of which the following is a copy, was ad-
dressed by me day before yesterday to the
Bee, with view to put at rest certain state
ments concerning our levees, and which 1t
seemed to me, in addition to being explana-
tory, included q proposition boxing to the
establishment Of truth, which public jour
nal always anxious to defend that article
would quickly accept and put into action.
Inasmuch, however, as your contemporary
not only declines to put its statements to the
test propose, but also to give publicity to
my explanations OF some points upon which
it has reflected, you are st liberty to publish
the following if you think best to do 30.
Yours, i. +. BAssETT
Editor Sacramento Bee-Dsar Sir: In your
issue of yesterday, and also Of Saturday, Feb
ruary 10th. you try to make out that there is
a difference in the statements Of j. q. Pier
son and myself relative to the hight Of the
levee at various points, and that you would
like to hear from Us again. 1 have been IN
able to see Mr.. Pierson. but take the liberty
of making the following statement on my
own account: Those who examined our state
ments will find that they agree as to the sit
uation at the end Of the levee system at
Brighton Junction. As to the difference
claimed in our statements as to the hight of
the river front above high-water mark, it is
only necessary to observe that the point
which Mr.. Pierson speaks OF as only one foot
above high water has since been raised so as
to make it four feet above high water. OF
course you will not attempt to deny that at
the time his statement was made he told the
truth.
AS to the alleged difference in our state
mentz as to the amount which the north levee
is above high-water mark, it is only necessary
to observe that when Mr.. Pierson speaks of
the north levee, he includes that portion of
the levee system coming down outside Of
the railroad shops and back of the round
house. A references to my figures shows that
at the lowest point place the hight at only
one foot ten inches above high water. But
in speaking of the north levee l generally
consider it as ending at Seventh street (where
it Is four feet above high water. Hence the
difference between Mr.. Persons statement
and mine, in regard to thI1 point, Is an ap-
parent and not real one.
In regard to my statement generally. which
you dispute, of course every one knows that
it ia an easy matter TO prove whether they are
correct or net. Therefore, I make you this
proposition, which no one, | think, will call
unfair Let us choose an engineer in whom
both of us have confidence let him go over
the points in dispute and see who is
correct. If he finds the river front to be no
higher than l state; if he finds my state
ment concerning the nights along the north
and east levees Including that portion about
the railroad shops) correct; nay statement
concerning the hight of the Y-street levee cor
rect; and my statement as to the condition
Of affairs existing st and beyond Brighton
Junction and the possibility of water enter
ing the city from that direction by way Of
Burns slough to be correct, then you shall
pay the bill for his work. If, on the contrary,
my statements are found to be in correct and
yours true as to those points, then 1 viii psy
the bill. II you cannot accept this propcsi-
ton, sincerely trust you will cease to dis
pute the facts and figures upon which I have
based my estimates and recommendations.
Very truly, your obedient servant,
l., +. BAssETT
Sacramento, February 10, 1884.