Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-03-11


5 tage IL is fact, which everyone will recoe
J nize, that YOU can drive cattle TO we'll an
! they soon learn 10 go without being drive
) whenever they get thirsty. But running stream
IS ne ceSsary for irrigation. The crops will nc
, 90 10 the water. but the cattle will So the maj
, VINO lies ON the banks of the river can dig hi
well and remain on the banks of the river il h
: peaseS. The matter of irrigation has been re
ierred TO as something triiiiug by the Senate
rom, Nevada Cross and as local and inSiguiii
cant by others. But are the gentlemen informe,
ON the Importance of this question: The his
tory OF II is all the lesson that man needs thu
history of it in India. in Italy. in Spain, and o:
The banks of the Nile certainly o;.ght to bc suf
/ nclent to conviECe any one of the advantages d
! irrigation in this country. What viii irrigation
do for California II will relieve the stock
raiser and the farmer; he need no longer strait
! his eyes i'll watching nor his voice in praying fol
rain II puts him on anindepeudent plane. ant
ne stands like the ancient people in the cradle
OF civilization, on the Nile where the white
robed priests by the Nilometer could foretell Tho
harvest; and, like Il god, he can command from
the SOIL whatever he will. II puts him on thi:
independent plane, and removes from his mind
Ihe terror OF Il dry season; II puts him where be
mas never been before. Suppose we 20 back &c
the riparian doctrine; what IS &c become OF us
You wipe out the assessment roll of these couu-
ties. and these cities and towns that would be
the result.
desire to call attention to one point more
! and will conclude. hold i'll my hand Il docu.
| ment, complied by legislative authority, in the
Territory of Arizona, respecting its resources
order to draw picture which you will rccog-
niZe
The evidence is indsputable that the val
leyS OF the ella. the Salt the Verde, the San
! Pedro the Colorado Chiquito and all the princi-
pal water courses throughout the Territory were
| at some time IN the dim past, filed with dense
F.. population. The outlines of artificial water
| courses which are found near every stream
and the smooth and perfect confguration of the
! !and-with an almost imperceptibe slope
| toward the river bed-ieaves no doubt that a
| teeming population once lived and labored here
| Not unfrequsntly the modern husbandman up
| turns from the soil some ride implement, used
| by his unknown predecessor, cuts with his
| ploY into some old adobe wall, once the habi-
tation OF the tiller of the soil, whose bones have
| long since moldered to their kindred dust. In
many a valley, u desolatc waste these
/ mute evidences of thrift and industry are
| seen on every hand and vast regions
| nature, were, at some remote period. the homes
| OF a race VINO made them bloom with beauty
and smile with industry. There is every reason
| to believe that where one acre Is cultivated III
| the Territory today, twenty were made pro-
! ductive by the people who once occupied the
! land. This may well be called the prehistoric
| period OF Arizona, when the country presented
| Il far different appearance from what ii does to-
! day 1t was period when valley vale and
| glen blOSsomeG with the fruits of peaceful in
| duStry when comfortable homes dotted the
, plain and mountain side, and when happy
| people dwelt in peace and plenty, surrounded
| by everything which would crafty their simple
| wants: But the race which once made these
| arid plains and deserted valleys 10 smile with
yendure have passed away, leaving behind no
trace of their origin their history, their ex-
tinction. A few crumbling and shapeless ruins
is all that remains to tell the tale of their exs-
tence and the Pickering and uncertain CLEAN
of conjecture is all that is left to guide the ex-
plorer in discovering the fate that befel them
1t has been a question for many years with
those who have sought to determine who those
people were and what caused their extinction.
think have reached the answer; | think
have reached the proper conclusion. You have
already seen from the description | have read
what an immense population once existed there
and upon what their existence depended and
am satisfied now can account for their eXtinC-
ton. When in the hight of their prosperity
the Supreme Court OF that country, upon the
application of q few riparian owners, concluded
that the ripartanists were entitled to have the
water fow i'll its natural channel, undiminished
and unpolluted. That decision was rendered
and the people seeing ruin staring them i'll the
face, appealed 10 the Legislature, and Senator
from Napa and another from high up in the
mountains told them they must wait a little
longer. They waited; they died waiting, and
the valleys have returned to their original state.
That is but q picture Of what you will see in
southern California if this Legislature gives the
people OF that section nothing but the advice TO
wait.
Mr.. Saxe-I would like to ask the gentleman
who has just taken his seat whether it is not
true that irrigation and the appropriation of the
water has been going on for the purposes of irri
CATION ever since 1854, under the laws of the
State of California enacted in 1851? l simply
ask whether the waters OF the State of California
have not been appropriated steadily and uni
tormly under these laws?
Dir Reddy-I think so.
Mr.. Saxe-And has there been any complaint
OF want OF power to appropriate and use the
water under these laws?
Mr.. Reddy-Never until the riparian owners |
made it.
Mr.. Saxe-Well, l would like to ask another |
question; whether, in view of the desire of the |
appropriations of water now to abrogate Section |
~ OF the Code by striking out the declaration |
of riparian rights and their maintenance, there |
has not been proposition made over and over |
again to pu- substitute i'll place of it, defining |
what that should consist of-not to the wafer |
running away past me, but to the right to Use |
water now appropriated by riparian prOprietors |
FOR domestic use-the watering of stock, and for |
irrigation where practicable have not offers of
that kind been made as a compromise and 10
end the quarrel on that basis?
Mr.. Reddy-1 know of no substitute for Sec
ton 1422. for the object of repeating that was
simply to do away with the riparian doctrine in
this state, if it ever did exist. The second sec
ton of the bill, as it originally stood is a declar
alton as to the condition of the country. II is
not substitute for Section 1922 but is simply a
legislaty' declaration of the physical condition
OF this State, and whether the doctrines of the
common law are applicable to our condition.
MIR. SaXe--l ask the question over again, |
whether the desire is to deprive the present
proprietors of water, or owners of water priyi-
leges from using the water for stock, domestic
purposes irrigation, etc.
Mr. Reddy-No, sir.
Mr.. SaXe-lf it is not. then why not say soo
Mr.. kcddy-We have said so.
Mr.. Saxe-I have not so understood it.
Mr.. Reddy-Haye you ever read the Constitil-
ion? The Constitution of this State says We
cannot do it. Is the G any sense in saving we
won't DO what we cannot do?
Mr.. Sake have seen no specific statement
n the bills on that point
Mr. Reddy-l see very clearly that the Senator
has been misled on that point as many good
nan has been misled before him. | believe
here are many Senators on this floor even
low, notwithstanding the efforts that have
md allow me to say just this
Il addition to what has been said: it is funda
mental principle of our Government laid down :
II the Constitution of the United States and in | ,
he Constitution of this State, that no mans pri
ate property can be taken from him. or any ! /
art OF IT, or lntertered with in any way except i
lnder the power of eminent domain. which !
means that if an individual has piece of prop ,
rty which is necessary for the public use that =
he property may be taken from him by Il proper .
i'll Court, of which he must have no L
ice aud in which he will have his day, and he /
fully paid for that property. +
Mr.. Saxe-Then will ask the gentleman to T.
xplain what was the basis of the Judgment of -
he supreme Court i'll this last case. asserting @
iparian rights. What was the cause of action ~
nd what was the basis ofthe decision? Il
MIR. Reddy-1he cause of action was the d. | :,
ersion Of water from what was said to be the d
atural channel of the river For instance the n
efendantS diverted all, or considerable pOr- n
ion of the water of the river. Another party h
no had land, as he claimed, on the banks of h
ne river, brought an action for damages for the ;,
version, and asked for Il judgment preventing ~
nat party from continuing that diversion, or III ~
ther words, enjoning him from diyerting the :,
ater in the future, pcrpetua.ly stopping him l.
ON that work. The Supreme Court held that :.
re party living on the bank of the river and !,
wing the land, had right to have all the "
alter dow down to and by and through his :,
md, and thus established what is called the ~
parian doctrine in this State. -
Mr.. SaXe-I will ask the gentleman now If he ~
willing to substitute i'll place of that dcclara- -
on III Section li22-hc proposes 10 abrogatc =,
lat -
Mr.. Reddy-That can only affect the future Il
Mr.. Sake understand; but are You willing 81
substitute in place of that a declaration of te
lis kind Riparian rights shall consist of the n
sc of the water of any stream flowing contigu- al
Is to or through the land of any proprietor or "
vner of any land, for domestic use the water u
g of stock, and for irrigation and mining T
here practicable, and water-power where W
1t already appropriated; bu; any water in OK q"
IS of such use may he appropriated by Others CT