Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-02-19
THE LIVES.
THE HISTORY OF 1881 RECALLED-soME
FACTS
Newspaper VS.. Engineers-Bageless Assault
Upon the Proposition to Insure
Safety from Inundation.

While the puerility of the unsupported as
serticns of the ECentng Bee on their face evil
dence their bsselessness, it is perhaps true
that some voters may be misled or confused
by our contemporary S bald ssseverations con-
corning the city levees, and there is therefore
soma excuse for giving prominence to an ex-
hibit of the absurdities of the evening paper.
THE FIRST SPECIFICATION.
The Chairman of the Lsyee COMMITTEES Of
the Citizens Association, so far from urging
the application Of money by the city to pre-
tect lands below or outside the city, is report
ed by his fellow.committeemen to have dis.
tinctly disavowed such purpose from the
outset, and to have uniformly declared that
outside people must protect themselves, The
"scsre" about protecting hop lands is bug
sboo copjured from the fertile imagination of
the Bee, and cuts no other figure in the de-
bate. No one has asked for, no one will con-
sent to, and not dollar will be expended for
that or any similar purpose.
THE ENGINEERS.
The self-important sheet declares that En-
gineers Pierson and Bassett are capable and
earnest in their belief" but in the next
breath parsdes its arbitrary statements as
facts against the demonstrated statistics of
the engineers. Here's richness for you. The
Bees speculations VS.. the engineers specific
measurements.
THE MEASUREMENTS.
1t charges that Pierson and Bsssett do not
agree in their figures, and therefore both
must be wrong. To wit, that Pierson says
the north levee is but two feet, while Bsssett
declares it is four feet above hig water mark.
Now mark how plain tale shall PUT down
the Bee. When MIR. Pierson made his survey
it was prior to the new work done on the
north levee. When Bsssett made his survey
il was after the elevations were made, for be-
tween the surveys work has been done upon
the lsyee. But this is wholly immsterisl; the
reports of both agree that the leUee should be
raised at once.
THE TRUE HIGHT.
But the evening sheet AYERS that never
siBce 1879 has water risen within eight feet
of the topOf the north leyee, except at one point
where il csm cup to within five feet. Indeed I?
The leYee is three miles in length. At what
point, where and by whom was the Bees
measurement made, and how comes il that
the fixed marks of the city surveys show il
was within three feet of the top in 1881 at
several points, and how is it that it has been
deemed wise to raise the levee one
foot since, as has been done, which now
places it at four feet, as Mr.. Bassett states D.?
Here is a fat misstatement by our contempo-
rary, which it is Impossible for it to explain
away. tits advised not to undertake it, since
the figures ard proofs of the engineers are
ready.
FRONT STREET.
But Bassett is mistaken, says the Bee, as to
the hight Of the Front street levee, and it
then proceeds TO set up by a marvellous
method of reasoning about the grade of Front
street. from the edge of the levee to the side
walk, by which it figures out that 1.-THE Sac
rament) river has never been within feet
inches Of The top Of the river front levee"
Now, mark the deceit, for if the river should
rise TO test the accuracy Of its guess work, it
would, in rising 3 feet inches above high
water of 1881, flow over the whole surface of
Front street and up to the edge Of the side
walk, spectacle that would certainly give
strangers a good idea of our security. But,
in fact, the Front street levee, by records on
file Ia the City Engineers office. is shown BIZ
actual survey to be, a. it's lowest points, J1tt
q feet aJore the last high 7oater. Which will
the people believe, the official survey or the
Bees bald assertion?
THE BRIGHTON LKvEE.
"Oae foot is 3 large margin st Brighton"
says cur reighbOr meaning thereby that
il viii Go to take the chances Of higher water
than that of 1881. Also, that even if the
food does surmount that one foot it will pass
away IN the direction Of Whisky Hill. That
oGcs was popular belief, as, in 1879, we in
Dictated AS against the dogmatic statements
% tba Re- nd ba a. =
hear the words of the City Engineer, who mas
recently run the levels and declares to us he
can prove mis- statements before any compe-
tent jury Of citizsns on the ground. He
sIys
Here il is found that the east loyee after running
out on the comparatively level plain suddenly ter
inmates by dropping in hight about seven feet to
near the level Of the plain that Just beyond this
poiHf me high irdieTo u 1851 ldcted less than me
fOOf " sufficient Iteration 10 pass OTeF the pidiHg
beY0Hd The end OF the leree that u the food Of
1851 had reached one foot higher the food teaieTS
otf american lr0ULd hare entered the city from
that direction, aud that during the food of 1862
the water did flow over the plains at that point in
considerable volume. Further, that the channel Of
the American river opposite has since 1862 become
nearly filled with sand and gravel, while the bottom
banks bordering it have been raised in their general
level nom to three feet from the same source.
IL Is therefore recommended to extend the levee
some 6,oO0 feet, as TO connect with high land at
old Brighton.
MORE CHEEK.
But the Bee grows holder as it proceeds to
coolly contradict the witnesses, and challenges
the array Of figures given by the engineer TO
disprove its negatives on the question of esti-
mates of cost Of work necessary to be done,
cutting them down exactly one-half with a
vandalism that is IS reckless ss it is unsup-
ported by a scintilla Of proof. Who is likely
to be most reliable, the newspaper writer in
his 6 cell, or the engineer who for years has
enjoyed the confidence of the city, and is
familiar and has bsen all that time with every
foot of the entire line Of the ievees?
BACKwATER MIssTATEMENTs,
Referring to the Y.street levee the incon-
scionable dcgmatist declares that the eugi-
neer says that the Y.street levee is from
two and one-hAlf to four feet above high
water mark, when in fact the Y-street levee
is several feet below high ig1ter mark" Here
is mendaCity for q premium The engineer
said nothing of the kind. What he does say
we published yesterday, TO wit:
Section l3-Y-street levee from the Sacramento
river levee easerly Here the evee is 20 feet wide
on top and p feet above the highest bockicater
known from the river eyee 10 Twenty-ii first street
Fast cf Twenty first street it is 20 feet vide on top
and feet above the highest bactlcater.
Can the Bee divest itself long enough of its
selfsufficiency to apologize TO the engineer
for fatty and coolly disappearing him
The manuscript from which we quote and
which we printed is the identical manuscript
from which he read on which the unendacious
criticism is based.
ANOTHER "BAcKwATER" MISREPRESENTATION.
But this vsndal in the gardens of truth fur
Their says of the Y.street levee cit is, in
fact, only one foot above the mark of the
water that backed in from the Lovdsl breaks
in 1878, and the water in the river then ran
some five feet higher than the top of the levee
now is. Consequently, that embankment
stands to-day five feet below high-wster
mark, in place of from two aud half to four
feet above, as Mr.. Bsssett asserts"
Now mark the truth. Since the measure
ment to which the Bee refers, showing the
one foot of excess of levee hight, eighteen
inches hare been Gdied TO the Y-Street legee
hight, fact the Bee knoGs and itself published
at the time. In the arithmetic which prevails
Il i. 1 4. 4 Ii