Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-08-03
The Drainage Claims Decision.

EDS. REcoRD-UNI0N: l see in to-day's
San Francisco Chronicle an editorial headed
" The Drainage Steal" commenting on
Judge Mcfarland decision in the case Of
Miller ". Dunn in language showing as
little regard to truth As to decency. / am
in no way interested i'm the case in qlcs-
ton, nor III any of the claims involved
but common justice demands that such
statements should not pass unChallenged.
II Is asserted by the paper referred to that
these claims are owned by SPECTATORS
that the original contractors charged eX-
orbitant prices for the work done by them.
and that this was caused by the fact that
the so-called Drainage Act was so plainly
unconstitutional and had been so uniyers-
ally pronounced invalid by lawyers. that
the contractors considered their venture in
the light of a gambling speculation These
assertions are pt0hy derOid Of hrt,th aud on
a par uith The reckless interpretations com
mon acith The .iOtaHdt. IN question =. A.
Miller. the plaintiff III the case spoken vi.
was one oi the original contractors. and his
claim is for work done and materials fur
nished by himself in the construction Of
levees and bulkheads on the Sacramento
river near the town of Westinghouse
work indispensable flor the protection Of
that town and the preservation of the
river channel. His bid for the work, made
at open competition, was so low that
he ruined himself in the performance
of his contract; and if lac now receives his
pay for that work il will not make GOOD
one-half Of his loss. So far rs | know
and the sources of my information are
guod-nearly the same may be said of all
the claims in question. All of them. or, |
believe almost without exception. are still
III the bands of the persons who performed
the work, and not case has ever been
made public in which any overcharge oc-
CURED. As for the mcOnstitutiGnality OF
the Act, | would like the Chronicle TO name
a single lawyer i'll the State, or, for that
matter, a single newspaper writer. who cV-
pressed in public any doubt whatever of
the validity of that statute until the meet
ing of the next Legislature. at which time
strenuous efforts We're made for its repeal
On the question of the repeal, the whole
State was ag!tated; vigorous war was
waged pro and con by the newspapers and
it was not until all hope of action by the
Legislature had been practically abandoned
that an appeal to the Courts was suggested
Before that time nearly all of this work
had been done, and all of the contracts had
been entered into. Up to that time no
doubt on the subject had been expressed
eminence 10 be found throughout the State
who have not been convinced even by the
opinion of the Supreme Court am not
expressing any dissent from that opinion
on my own part but if l entertained any,
it would not be removed by the pleading of
the Chronicle; and it seems to me that it
would be poor compliment to the Su-
preme Court to suppose that il can be in
Inundated from doing Justice in the present
case by the senseless clamors which that
journal is now raising The question now
involved is merely whether the State can
he permitted to pursue that course of fair
dealing which would be compelled in the
case of private individual, and this is a
question of which the solution cannot be
limited either by threats or misrepresenta-
ton. LAWYER.
Sacramento, August 2, 1885.
About $500 900 will be required for the