Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-02-18
RESOLUTIONS. :

Evening Session.
The Assembly met at 80 P. NJ, Speaker Parks
! in the chair.
| The speeiaforder for the evening was Assembly
Bill No. 49, for the appropriation of water for
! irrigation purposes, and declaring such purposes
! a public use and to come within Title Z OF Part
! III. of the Code OF Civil Procedure.
McJunkin moved to strike out Section l,
which repeats Section I'D of the Civil Code
| Firebaugh offered substitute for Section
the following The rights of riparian proprl-
etors heretofore acquired are not affected by the
provisions of this title. But all claims TO rlparl-
| an rights acquired hereafter shall be subject TO
rights Heretofore acquired by compliance with
! the provisions OF this title.
/ Hazard opposed the substitute.
| Weaver said the section of the Code embraced
| in the section had no reference to the subject.
| Munday opposed both the motion TO strike out
and the substitute offered by Firebaugh.
Yule said the question was one that had agi-
tated the people of the State 1o- months. The
bill had been carefully prepared and should be
accepted by the friends of irrigation.
| Firebaugh declared the bill to be unconstitu-
tional and urged that his substitute was neces-
sary to make 1t stand the test of the Courts.
He did not wish to see any more uneonstltu-
| tional legislation.
McJunkin moved that rules IS, 40 and 30 re
| ferring to the previous question: be suspended
| for the evening. Lost
The roll was called on Firebaugh's substitute
| for Section l, which was lost by vote of %
! ayes to - noes.
| The question then recurring on McJunkins
motion to strike out, McJunkin took the fioor
and spoke in favor of his motion. He asserted
that irrigation is not an entirely new subject IN
this State, but had been made the subject of
! legislative action when the Codes were prepared
| as far back as 1870 Section l422 then enacted
was well considered, and should be retained as
| the law of the State. 1t prevents monopoilsts
| from grabbing up the strips OF land along the
| streams. 1t enabled small holders to settle on
the land along the streams and protected them
| in the enjoyment of their property and their
| rights. Each member of the Assembly should
thi-ik for himself and not be influenced by the
| action of any convention OF men;
| Clark and Dewitt spoke briefly against the
motion to strike out
| McJunkin said he had yet to hear reason
given for repeating section I'D that was found
| ed in Justice We received most of our title TO
land in this State from Spain, and rot from
England, where the common Jaw prevail ;. lie
! would like to hear some one rise and declare
that there are no riparian owners. The supreme
Court has affirmed that there are Such. Inc
plans now proposed 10 the Legislature are the
very acme of ignorant seltishness The section
sought to be repealed says the man who pays
stream has property rights that must be re-
spectcd. No Courts in the land would deprive
him of the rights thus acquired.
Aiunday said that the amendment strikes at
the very principle sought TO be enacted. The
whole sub ect has been treated fully by the
Courts as late as two years back. Owing 20 the
existence of Section i4l2 in the law, the Courts
| had simply to confirm the rights OF riparian
owners and 1t is to change that condition of
affairs that the bill under consideration sought
to repeal that section. Retain that section, and
lands that have been redeemed from the desert
and made to blossom as the rose Will be rele-
gated to their ccsert-like and unproductive con-
ditlon. Section 1872 prohibits the poor settler
on lands away from the river from lrriSatlng
and cultivating his lands. Its effect is 10 de-
| prye those who live back from the streams OF
the privilege they desire. Retain that section Ill
the law, and you wipe ont sl5,0e0,OuO OF prop
erty III Fresno county.
/ Np(,10Glnn denied there
CATION commensurate with the needs of the
| State. The two sides of the question are so
broad that no man can hope 10 hold neutral
ground. The whole gist Of the question at issue
| is embraced in the motion TO strike cut Sec
ton l.
| ZONES smoke in favor of the motion to strike
| out The question is n grave one. The State
| cannot AFFORD to take away from the riparian
| owners their rights Let the land be condemned
| let the State pay for it, but don't wipe out the
| law under whose provision they were induced
| to settle on the banks of the water-courses. He
| appealed to all to vote for McJunkns motion.
| Hazard denied the power of the Legislature
! tn take away a single vested right He was sur
prised that LAWYERS should declare there are
! vested rights and then intimate that the Legis-
| iatrlr. might take them AWAY The Supreme
| C0lrt has said that the present law does not
| nrotect the appropriatiou of water. What rights
| are Threatened? # a man has forty acres OF
| land along a river does il miurc him il water
he taken ont for Irrigation instead of letting il
| 20 to.waste? Is ii right that the streams that
| rise in mountains should be allowed TO flow on
| 10 rht. ocean unG the lands through which il
| rms he permitted TO remain n desert when
| they might be made TO blossom as the rose
| Unless there * sometime ia Iroccf raDital in
| vested the whole southern portion of the State
| will he jriured and its settlement retarded
| Rritt smoke in supnorf of the motion 10 strike
| ont The nIrport of The bill is 10 take away
| from one class vested rights that they have en-
loved for wears If Section 1922 is to be repealed
| The whole ch amer should be repealcG
| Nctilashan said there i 10 such picture of
| wrong as that held IN by the gentleman from
| Sacramento The right of the riparian owner
| is the right of The dog in the malgcf. Should
| the stream he allowed to flow from the Sierra to
the sea, while the fields ON either side lie
| not alone Tor the present. but for the future.
| MAJ rould soc blit one side to this Question
| There is no reason why the waters of the
| streams should not be diverted upon the unpro-
| ductlve lands and the man who happens 10
| live on the bank has no sight 10 object.
Ellison said he would favor amy measure that
| would help the appropriations of water, If they
would show a decent respect for the rights of
others Although in favor of irrigation he was
opposed to the repeal of Section I422 It's repeal
irene statements made, but he did not expect
| to hear il declared that the man who lived On
the bank of u stream mad no rights To- the water
| therein II mas been said that we rs lcgisa tofs
| have had no time to sufficiently consider the
| merits OF the bill tut should adopt the cOnclu
sions of the Convention held down in Fresno
| He for one did not propose that any person or
any body should dictate what his vote should be
on any public measure. There are other people
IN This State who should have something to say
in this matter. BE was in favor of having all
the water taken out of streams for irrigation
provided enough is left for the uses of those who
| live along the banks; hence he was also in
| iayCr OF the present legal provision to protect
the rights Of the riparian owners. Under the
law here proposed to enact, one man might 90
upon stream and appropriate all the water
| therein and deprive his neighboT below him Of
enough to water his STOCK or make a cup OF
coffee. The present law protects the man below
from such dcpYiyatOn-sIlch complete confisca-
ton OF his property. lie wanted to see some
thing done that would not only protect the ripa-
riau owners but also provide for Il liberal system
of irrigation.
| Coleman said he was more enlightened on the
| subject than when it was first preached. 1t
| looked rs if they were about putting the cart
before The horse The hill under consideration
| laid down tie Enlcnding answering PROPOSE
ton that riparian owners have no rights. He
! thought the friends Of the bill were single
viewed in the mAtter-single-h hearted, ia fact.
He moved that bill No. 40 Qhc one under con-
sderatiOuj be made the special order for
Wednesday evening, that the others may bu
considered first.
Dewitt and Weaver opposed the motion. They
thought the bills were NOW IN their proper order
for consideration.
Jordan explained that the present order OF the
bills Oh the file was the result Of n mere acct
dent lie was inclined To agree with the gentle
man from San Mateo that bill No. III, =" to pro
vide FOR the organization and control of water
and irrigation districts, should be first consd-
cred He was Il friend 10 irrigation, but believed
! that the bill under consideration Should be
placed n the foot Of the list Of the irriga ion