Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-08-04
TEE PURPOSE CONFESSED.

B. Marks sends US letter, which we
cheerlully print, since j. illustrates into
what a degree of monomania man may
be led:
EDS. REcoRD-UNIoN: In your issue OF to-day
Won accuse the friends OF irrigation of hypocrisy
because they favor the action of Judge Terry.
while their motives are different from those that
govern him.
am here to represent the small-farm interest
OF Fresno, and in that interest / deny your
charge OF hypocrisy, so far as it concerns the
friends OF irrigation, and shall here substantiate
our denial. At the same time, we claim that
the EECORD-UNIoN has Invested itself of the
right 10 charge hypocrisy to the friends of
irrigation since in this materit is the pot o the
adage, and has no right to call any water hypo-
critic black.
While the RECoRD-UN MON has pretended to be
friendly 10 irrigation in its eloquent editorials
on its vast benefits. its magnificent results, and
Its absolute indiSpensableness 10 this great
valley, Ii has shown itself Ylrulent enemy OF
interior and southern California by its deliberate
Justification in the interest of rpaTianism of the
current history of the irrigation movement. If
the RECORD-U MON would Ike TO see the proof
of this charge of hypocr Sy against 1t, will
take vast amount of pleasure i'll producing it.
The friends OF irrigation are not hypOcriticdl
in this matter. They openly avow their reasons
for desiring to reconstruct the Supreme Court.
They claim that the Court has disgraced the
State by so-called decision, which is infamous
from every point of view from which it can be
considered: among which are, disregard of law
of practice, and of cannon sense inexcusable
ignorance OF facts, silly and crude suggestion as
to future legafproeedure, and deadly destruction
10 the most vital interests Of he State. If you
think these points are written nj random you
mistake. The limits of this Communication do
not permit their setting forth but the RECORD
UNION and other enemies of interior and south
ern California Will see enough on that subject
before this irrigation question IS settled in the
only way it Is possible 10 settle it, which is by
complete reversal of the foolish and destructive
so-callcd decision ut the earliest possible mo-
ment.
We do not question your right 10 do exactly
what all the enemies of irrigation are doing
namely, to claim 10 be friends of irrigation
while you are doing all You can TO Obs,ruct the
efforts OF the Irrigation Executive Committee to
repair the terrible damage inflicted upon the
State by the Supreme Court. But we do queS-
ton your right 70 charge iis with the hypocrisy
You are yourself guilty of, when we merely favor
the accomplishment on grounds of physical dis
ability of that which We would prefer TO accom-
plish on our own ground of mental and judicial
lmhecility. B. MARKS.
Sacramento. August /, 1856.
When Mr.. B. Marks charges the
RrcoRD-UXIoN with hypocrisy, or any
sort Of Justification or misrepresentation,
or that it is the enemy of irrigation or the
interior, or of southern California, he
simply and fatty falsiGes. It would be
charitable to say unintentionally falsifes,
but none the less his silly charge is wholly
false and untrue in every particular. This
journal was engaged in the study of irri-
cation systems for California before Mr..
Marks was heard of, and it has been all its
years and expects to remain the consistent
ardent friend of agricultural interests of
the whole State However, we have no
intention Of entering upon any defense
in answer to the vituperation in which
Mr.. Marks so far forgets himself, and
which he mistakes for strength, as to in
dulge. The real value of the letter con-
sists in the confession made, and which he
claims to make by authority, that the at
tempt to destroy the independence Of the
Supreme Court by the creation of vacancies,
is not honest. That is to say, the charge
of ID. 5. Terry is mere make-shift, used
not to better the bench or conserve the in
terests of justice, but to secure the reversal
of a given decision. With the first at
tempt abandoned, and the mask dropped
from the second, there is clear sailing in
the debate from this on.
we have repeatedly aud unmistakabiy
said, and it has been iterated over and
again, that the question of systems, ripar-
ianism or the doctrine OF appropriation,
has at no time been taken into account by
rs in debating the matter of the assault
upon the Court 1t is an issue above and
beyond that, and involving interests be-
side which all irrigation schemes sink out
of sight 1t is net the question at all of
the soundness or unsoundness of the de-
cision referred TO, or of its possible or
probable results; it is not a question
whether this, that or the other bill, meas
ure or amendment, should be adopted. All
these things have nothing to do with our
protest against the infamy Of the attempt
to Mexicanize the State Government.
If the advocates Of the several measures