Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-07-29

Supreme Court is a sufficient declaration of the
law upon the subject, and argued that any fur
Their legislation in that direction, by merely de
claring such and such to be the case, would be
useless. He held that no good could come from
declaring" the waters OF the State to be pubic
property, etc., as under this decision the State
owns no water-has none, in fact That
which is running in the streams belongs (by
this decision) to the riaarianists. The only
course to pursue is to empower somebody on the
part of the State to acquire water that may be
devoted TO q public use. Then the State Will
have water. and not till then. After that is
done it will be time enough to devise a means
for its distribution. A change in the Consitu-
ton is required in order to establish either State
or district authority to acquire water. This
provision must he put into the Constitution in
order to make it lawful. for none OF the methods
proposed to distribute the waters of streams can
be legal under the present Constitution, as de-
fined by the Supreme Court. All that this Legis-
lature can do is to submit to the people proper
amendment to the Constitution. and let them
say whether they want any of that business or
not. If they do, the next Legislature, coming
direct and fresh from the people, will be able TO
legisate intelligently upon the subjeet-not
perfectly, of course for it viii be the work of
years and years to frame perfect laws
Mr. Cross thought that III order to proceed
intelligentlr at this time, some recognized basis
must be laid for action. The people do not un
derstand the situation and he thought it safe
and advisable to arrive at some mutual under
standing, or declaration, of the existing status
of the question of water rights, and then legis-
late with that for common basis or starting
point.
Mr. Spencer thought the question at issue to
be the most momentous and difficult one hat
ever confronted the legislators OF the State. He
did not believe it possible for any body of men
to legislate understandingly upon problem so
difficult without long and deep study and inveS-
tigalion. He did not know but that the better
plan would be for the present LEGISLATURE to Sc
leet a Commission, to be composed of the ablest
men in the State, to study the question from
now until the meeting of the next Legislature,
and then submit to that body the result of its
Investigations With all Difference to the abili-
ties of the members of the committee, and of
the Legislature, he did not believe there was a
man in the State capable at this time of solving
the problem iii way that would do full justice
to all interests at stake
Mr. Whitney believed his bill to be correct
condensation of the existing laws OF this State
and foreign irrigation countries on the subject,
and thought is passage would facilitate mat
tiers.
1t was finally determined to continue the fur
ther consideration of the Whitney bill until the
next meeting.
A BILL RECOMMENDED.
The Assembly Committee on Irrigation met
last evening and took up for consideration As
sembly Bill No. l. introduced by Moflitt of Ala
media, an Act to repeal Section liZ2 OF the Civil
Code.
Motiitt moved that it be referred hack to the
Assembly, with recommendation that ii do
pass
walrath moved to amend by striking ont the
recommendation. He thought the bill should
be referred back to the House without recon-
mendation.
M0iiitt defended his motion, saying that the
repeal OF Section 1i22 would wipe out the ac-
QUESTION of riparian rights in the future, but
would not interfere with vested tights already
acquired.
Woodward was in favor of the amendment
This was an extreme bill, and one which. i'll his
opinion, could not pass. He said middle and
more equitable position must be taken. Unless
a middle ground was adopted no legislation
could be secured.
Walrath's amendment was defeated by the
following vote:
Ayes-Culyer, Gregory, Kalben, Woodward
Walrath-5.
Nces-Ash, Clark. De Witt. Edwards, Goucher,
Hussey, Hazard, Munday, Moflitt, Mcdonald,
Patterson, Reeves, Swayne-l3.
Moilitt's resolution then prevailed.
Munday introduced substitute for the De
Witt blll-No. 5-which is identical with that
introduced in the Senate by Del Vale.