Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-07-26

| county, to preside over its deliberations
| The question of irrigation and laws gov
| erning water rights and the distribution of
water was thoroughly discussed for three
| days, and the proceedings were published
in pamphlet form and widely circulated.
That Convt ltion elected Legislative Com
mittee, of which Mr.. Shorb was Chairman,
to whom was delegated the work of formu-
lating such bills as might be found neces-
slry to present TO the Legislature for pas
sage to give the people a more equitable
| right to use the waters of the State
At the Riverside Convention this riparian
| question was raised, and it soon became ev-
ident that it eclipsed all questions brought
up for discussion.
In the autumn of 1854 this Legislative
Committee, acting under the authority of
the power which created it, called second
Convention, to meet at Fresno on the 4th
of December of that year. At this second
session there was present q large BODY of
men who owned the soil to be irrigated to-
gether with few representatives of canal
companies, all of whom were interested in
securing the right to use the waters of the
State for irrigation purposes.
This Fresno Convention increased its
| Legislative Committee to eighteen, and for
three days ard nights this committee was
|
principles which were to govern the Con-
| vention in asking for future legislation.
These principles were thoroughly discussed
by the committee, and they were adopted
after they had been SO thoroughly discussed
that they could be adopted unanimously.
They were so adopted finally by the com
mittee, which was composed of every shade
of thought and interest il this great com
| pick question. The platform as adopted
was presented to the full Convention and
unanimously adopted by that BODY by a
rising vote of over one hundred representa-
| tive men, who had assembled from all sec
| tons of irrigable California.
| Up to this time no large moneved inter-
ests had stepped forward to join the anti
| riparian forces. and the people who wanted
| the water to irrigate their lands had cham
pioned the cause, and were working to the
| best OF their ability to save themselves and
the State, as they honestly believed from
| impending ruin 1t is true that w. 3. Carr
| dropped into the Fresno Convention on the
last day OF its session, but he did not place
| his name on the roll of membership
neither did he participate in its delibera-
| tons directly, Or influence its action indi-
rectly.
The Legislative Committee of Eighteen
appointed an Executive Committee ofnine.
|
| necessary bills in accord with the platform
of principles adopted by the Convention.
and present those bills to the legislative
| session of 1885, and urge their passage.
Thls Executive Committee consisted of J.
DeBarth Shorb, VIII. S. Green, II. S. Dix
| on, E. II. Tucker, J. F. Wharton, r. Hud
nut i. B. Ruggles, D. K Zumwalt and L.
NJ. Holt. If it is of any interest to the
public 10 know the fact it might be stated
in this connection, that politically consid-
| cred, this committee stood, without design,
four Republicans, four Democrats and one
| Prohibitionist.
This committee prepared several bills
| covering various branches of the water
question and presented them to the Legis-
lature. They passed the Assembly by
| large majority, and only failed in the Sen
| ate because of delays which required two
| thirds vote to get them up for action. The
! Legislature adjourned and nothing was
| done.
Up to this time the Executive Committee
had the hearty Endorsement of the press
and people of the State, with rare excep-
| tons.
In April, 1886, the Supreme Court. bv
bare majority of one, issued its decision in
| the celebrated case of Miller & Lux VS..
| Haggln d Carr, in which the principle of
|
such manner that it made the irrigators
of the State tremble for the safety of their
water rights and homes.
| An " extraordinary occasion arose. and
| the Executive Committee at once issued its
call for third State Irrigation Convention.
to be held in the city of San Francisco on
the Goth of May, 1886. This Convention
was largely attended by delegates from all
over the State. For the first time w. B.
| Carr, of the firm of Haggin e. Carr, ap-
peared, and took part in the proceedings:
and because his celebrated case happened
! to be the great test case on which the va
lidity of nearly all of the water rights of
| the State were TO be decided, he was made
| a member of the Executive Committee.
AT the San Francisco Convention the acts
of the old Executive Committee were
heartily Endorsed, and the committee were
continued, and the number enlarged by the
addition of four names-W. B. Carr. John
2. Irish, VIM. T. Coleman and n. d. Ride
| out.
Prior to the San Francisco Convention
| the President and Secretary of the Execu-
tive Committee had signed the names of
the entire committee to any public call or
document they desired TO issue, acting I'M
! der the directions of the various members
of the committee who gave them that
power.
The San Francisco Convention indorsed
the bills prepared by this Executive Com
| mittee. with slight notifications, and in
structed the committee to continue its work
and crystalize them into laws, if posi-
| bic, at the earliest possible moment.
The public sentiment of the State, as
represented through the State Irrigation
| Convention and the public press, appeared
| to demand these laws, and this demand has
been backed up by the petitions containing
over forty thousand names.
Believing that this work could be done
| better at an extra session rather than at
regular session, when public attention
would be taken Up by general legislation,
| Governor Stoneman, at the request of
ninety members of the Legislature out OF
one hundred and fourteen members in the
State, summoned that body to meet and
consider the questions which were of such
paramount importance
| Upon the issuance of this call which took
the people by surprise, many newspapers
suddenly discovered that the issue was
personal one between two very wealthy
| firms-Haggin Il Carr being ON the one
side and Miller g. Lux on the other-and
the people and their rights were entirely
lost sight Of
| The facts of the case are that the question
stands to-day just where it did when the
Legislature was in session during the win
ter and spring of 1885. with this single diff
| ference: At that time the riparian rights
decision was an indefinite quantity; now
it is a fixed fact, SO far as majority Of one
| in the Supreme Court can fix it.
| The Irrigation Executive Committee
stands to-day Just where it has stood for
I the past three years. 1t has not gone over
to Haggn & Carr, but Haggin & Carr have
come over to the Executive Committee, be-
cause their interests seemed to be identical,
SO far as the riparian doctrine is concerned.
| deny that the proposed legislation is in
the interest of a water monopoly. In San
Rernar1ino c0untv fbr-s 70 mt N ,;,,rls -r,yr-