Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-02-21

Assembly Bill No. 12-providing Home for
the Adult Blind. Cross spoke III favor of the
Spencer of Napa said the only objection he
had to the bill was the amount OF the apprO pri-
alton and the matter of location as these had
been amended he would vote for it.
The bill was then passed.
Senate Bill No. 309-To appropriate $3.50 for
the support of the Bureau Of Labor Statistics.
Passed.
Assembly Bill No 243-To enlarge the duties
of the Board OF Fiticultural Commissioners.
Read second time.
Senate Bill No. 2i7-Relating to educational
! matters, was partly considered and passed tenn
porarily.
tional asylum for the insane. Passed.
SAKE gave notice he would move 10 reconsider
Senate Bill No. S09
At $50 H. the President declared the Senate
| to be in Committee of the Whole.
The Chair-The question is upon the amend
ment offered by Senator De Long to Senate Bill
| No. 30
| Boone-I desire to offer an amendment to that
amendment by adding after the words " dOmes-
| tie use and for the irrigation of land where
| practicable and for the watering of cattle and
other stock of said proprietor" We all recOg
nize that this question is one OF paramount i'm
poTtance to the State of California. This bill is
intended 10 repeal that portion OF the law which
| has been the protection of large class of our
! community since the foundation of this Govern
ment. The law of riparian ownership is one
which has come down to US from that time be-
| yond which the memory of man runneth not to
| the contrary II belongs to us as q portion
OF our original government. We have in this
! state large extent of territory which would
| be affected b5Ss the passage of this law
/ Every foot of this territory. north as well as
| SOUTH VIII receive a benefit or condemnation,
according as this law shall effect their particu-
! lar portion. 1t is well known that our State is
| composed OF two entirely distinct and separate
| characters of climate and soil One half OF it
| is well watered, with an abundant supply OF
rain from the heavens, so that no irrigation
! seems needed to depend upon The natural
| flow OF water along the streams combined with
| the amount that descendS in the form of rain,
| supplies that portion of our country with all
| the water il needs In the other section Of the
| country We have boundleSs expanse of terri
1 tory, great portion OF winch is ARD and desc
| late, upon which but q very small proportion of
| rain falls. There, 1t is claimed, irrigation Is
| necessary. We viii admit these conditions to be
facts, that our country is thus divided and thus
| constituted. What would be the benefit Of one
! would be the death and destruction of the
other half No general law concerning that
| whole country. in regard 10 water rights. can
| accomplish the best interests. | say that the
| law as it stands has served the purposes OF the
! people well, bat we now find there is a move to-
/ ward changing the law. Whence comes 1t d?
| Does 1t come from the tarmer2 Does II come
| from the men who till the soil-who came to
this country in good faith and located their
| homes. brought their families with them settled
| on the land. and cultivated the soil for their
! own sustenance7 Or does it come from the hail
| of the monopolist tho man who has gathered
! in an immense number Of acres at small eX-
pense, and now, having acquired the right to the
| property, isf desirous TO benefit by taking
| the water from the actual settlers, and carrying
| it 10 his arid plains which cost him but two bits
an acre, and thus make fertile the lands thus
| acquired, to the damage and destruction of the
land owned by the actual settlers and the tillerS
OF the soil That IS the question Such questions
as these are always brought up at a
| time when the people are not ready
| for them. They are sprung upon us in an in
st9nt, and an attempt made to rush il through
| the Legislature without giving anyone time to
pause and think. This kind of legislation has
| been too often attempted. and has tCo often re-
| suited in damage TO the people. The legal as
pect of this question has been considered before
| this Senate and great many propositions have
/ been raised, and assertions have been made
| which need 10 be l0oked.at This bill so far as
| il attempts TO repeal Section 1i22 of the Civil
| Code, is no new measure in this State II has
| been presented to two or three Legislatures in
1 the past and has each time been rejected In
| the session of 1881 bill was introduced in the
| Assembly simply containing one provision, and
| that was provision repeating this Section 1922
| of the Civil Code. The committee to which it
was referred returned the bill TO the Assembly
I without any recommendation, and il failed
| to pass, In the next session of 1888 the
the committee returned it TO the Assem-
| bly, with majority report for its passage
and minority report against il: and it again
failed. These bills to repeal Section 1922 OF the
i Civil Code have always. by some peculiar chain
| OF circumstances, been introduced by the men,
| bers from Fresno county. This is significant
fact which the Senate should take into consider
alton in regard to the bills now before it, hardly
think that af.er tive Legislatures have put the