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

and see what is going on in other parts 1t
your duty and every Senator's duty to look be
yond the confines of his own county, and sec
what is going on in the other portions of tn
State and what legislation is necessary. wa
surprised at the Judicial term of mind whiel
was exhibited here to day on the part o
gentlemen engaged in this debate, who deliber
ately state that these measures, which hav,
been drafted by gentlemen whose reputation i
beyond question, arc measures to rob one maj
of his property and give It to another. admire
that turn of mind. l would admire that gentle
man who would go on the bench and thus dis
pose OF questions having heard only one side
! L admire that fairness which allies itself witt
one side OF a question and then comes up anC
breaches to the other side that it is not in
frame OF mind to deal with the matter, wal
for water? That is decidedly good Why, dom
the gentleman understand that this same ques
ton was before the Legislature two years ago
and the very same answer was made by the very
same gentiemen-Walt two years. Now we are
told to wait two years more; that Will make four
and have no doubt the same answer will be
given to the application two years hence by the
same parties.
! Another objection is that the question is a
F., local one. Indeed, bosy can it be said this is a
F.; local question; 1t begins at San Diego and does
county. All through the great valleys. from
: that point until you reach Stockton. irrigation
IS relied on for crops. Irrigation is necessary to
, establish farm or hnmc-at least the diversion
and appropriation of water is necessary 70 main
/ tain the homes and property all along that line.
Then pass on to the foothills and see if irriga-
ton Is not required. Why we have already
passed bill, by the consent of nearly every
man on the floor for Placer county. 1t is not a
, local que.tion, and when gentlemen say this is
! 4 local question it shows they are not we'll iu-
! formed upon it. We are told il is narrowed
j down to u few counties. Let us see | have
some figures here which will call attention to.
/ in Modoc and LaSsen counties irrigation is re-
! lied upon. The largest vineyard in the State is
| in Tehama county which is owned by Governor
Z 7 halin
creek. In the county of Colusa there is a de
| sire, and | may say scheme, already started,
! to lrrigate 80 square miles of land provided
! these laws pass or some system of irrigation is
devised which will protect the parties concerned.
/ believe that Iolo county has system of irri-
CATION. Siskiyou has one ditch which cost SO,
| 600, and others are contemplated.
! We are told by Senators that they viii vote
against this bill because it is local one. What
! was Senator Knights bill to-day? Was not that
! taken up and passed under suspension of the
rules, and was not that local matter-tO give
water to Santa Cruz" We are told that our petit
tions are insufficient or insignificant in point of
numbers let me ask who it was that petitiOncd
for the Heath amendment? Who was il that
petitiOned to have that submitted to the people?
Who petitioned Tor the forestry law and for the
bill on bugs and bees; fruit vines and fruit
trees; railroad, debris and drainage; and for q
law changing the names OF corporations. who
was it petitioned the gentlemen TO Stand up here
and suspend the rules for all these measures?
Aside from that, what measures remain here
onet VIII any gentleman name any bill that
is more important or more deserving of the at
tentiOn and consideration of this body than are
the bills which are here presented? II, then,
all other claims of legislation can be steamboat
ed or railroaded through, and nothing remains
of any great importance TO be attended 70, will
any Senator explain the opposition to the first
reading of these bills?
They have been on the file as long as any bills
here. and have never yet been heard or read in
this Senate. Nov we are told that We ought to
have considered them in the Committee of the
Whole; that when we reached them there we
did not discuss them.
fou will readily remember. Mr. President
that the Senator who suggested the considera-
ton of these bills in the Committee of the
Whole was the first one to aSsail them when
they reached there. And from the time that he
made his first assault until the Senate went out
Of the Committee of the Whole il was one con-
tinual talk on the part of the riparianists and
those who stand with them, and if they had
not been taken out of the Committee of the
Whole am very certain they would have been
talked to death That was the only way to save
them from such fate.
There IS nothing in the objections which have
been urged so far. II is said we should not sus-
pend the rules, because these measures should
not be taken up at this late hour viii anybody
be good enough to tell us when we should take
them up2 Are we not OIL the eve OF adjourn
mcnt, and away beyond the time allotted by the
Constitution? When should we take them up
or when can we take them up, if this is not the
time This is q mere evasion of the question
The Senator from Nevada tells us that this is
not an honest bill. and he therefore opposes it
Why, sir. it is but few days ago, when bill No
40 was under consideration in the Committee
of the Whole, that the gentleman moved to
amend by inserting the word mining" and
declared it had to 20 through in that form or |
it should not go through at all" He told us
there in dictatOrial terms. that we had 10 &C
cept his amendment, or no irrigation bill should |
pass. He told us today it was a dishonest |
and in effect, that unless he was per |
mitted to participate in the spoils, he would not
vote with Us. The Senator from Nevada viii |
that he denies this bill the kindness
and courtesy which was given his own when he |
came ON the floor of the Senate with the drain
age bill. The Senate kindly consented that it
should be taken up out of order and considered,
and am sure these irrigation bills will compare
tayorably with the dreinaSe bill in integrity and
honesty of purpose.
Why does ne deny to this bill the fair treat
ment which was accorded 10 his own?
Complaints have been made about the drafting
IF these bills. do not understand why those
who know most about this business should not
be The proper parties 20 draft these measures.
From the beginning to the end of this discus
-lon SenGtorSlu opposition have declared that
hey could not consent to take one mans prop !
,rty to give it to another; and that the aim and
Intention of these measures was to take prop
.Tty from one man and give 1t 10 another. Now
he Senators have failed entirely TO point to the
part which possibly could have such an effect
The only portion Of Bill 40 looking to taking
away man property Is Section /, which simply
provides for the condemnation of water rights
principle which is rs Old as the law itself; q
principle which IS necessary sometimes to the
cry existence Of state or II Government; one
which Is necessary to the progress OF every
'tstc. without it a single individual could stop
he march Of progress; it is that same principle
which enables the Government to make rail
Dad, and 10 make public Improvements. but
'hen they ind in this bill provision simply
pplying the same rule OF law to this
lass of property that is applied to
very class Of property in the state we are told
/. n 4yp M
dual and endangerS property rights. That is
mere pretcnsc, which everybody will see {
Trough. It is only necessary 10 look TO the laws
1 the state enforced since its organization and
f any civilized Government on earth. because I
his same principle is embodied in this bill it
said 10 be bill to rob one man in order TO en-
lCh another
In answering Senator Cross. I desire to cell his
ttention to one fact lie told us the petition
resented was only signed, believe. by &c per {
)ns. ! have petitions from more than 400 per |
)ns and in addition to that, the Senate should !
OF ignore the fact that the people in the coun- I
es south held two conventions, and their l
fishes have found expression through the com |
littee appointed by them and through the !
ewspapers and through the representatives on {
ais floor. Is it not strange there is not a single
here, or in the Assembly of this '
tate, from south of Stockton, that is not in IA !
or of irrigation? All of thes gentlemen went {
efOre the people and know that in my own !
ase openly declared at all times that was in {
lyor OF wping out the riparian doctrine In this c
ected. Is not that an expression of the will d
the people of this part of the country on that a
uestiou? What more could you demand
We are told here, another reason, that y
lese bills propose 20 take from the so-callcd f
parianisls every drop of water and to convert r
TO the use of the irrigators or appropriations,
aying the riparian owners without any water &
sll. Now. sir the bills have no such ain or II
beet. The question is legal one, whether the y
parian doctrine prevails in this State or not I,
has already been shown, on a former coca 81
on, the state of The law on this question 1t is Il
He to go TO Nevada or the ether decisions 7
his question was presented in the most able W
anncr to the Supreme Court OF this State, ans "
Ter months and months of consideration that v
ibunal decided by four to threc-fouT in favor a
the riparian doctrine and three against it ri
ID upon further consideration that Court y
anted Il rehearing, and set its decision aside d
lowing clearly that of the four Judges one at Il
asst must have grave doubts of the correctness v
the decision, and, rs | have already stated 1t
eretore remains an open question in this State Fl
neither the common law shall prevail or not C
That being an open question, then ii is for the lC
ate legislative department to declare It's policy u
T the future, 10 matter which way that de- p
sion may 90. If il shall be decided that teu Il
ria a f-fg, hoe hoo,