Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-03-07
THE BRIGGS BILL.
The Board of Supervisors Irdorse the
Ani-Debris Association Petition.

The Board of Supervisors Irdorse tho
Ansi-Debris Association Petition.
The Board of Supervisors of Sacramento
county, while in session yesterday, received
communication from George Ohleyer,
Manager of the Anti-Debris Association,
inclosing copies of petition formulated by
that association, and approved by the
Boards of Supervisors of the counties of
Yuba and Suffer. Mr.. 0hleyer stated in
his letter that it was desired that the Board
of Supervisors of this county should APP
prove the petition officially and notify him
of their action, SO that the petition could
be forwarded at once TO Washington. The
Board unanimously approved of the petit
ton, and instructed the clerk to notify Mr..
Ohleyer of its action. The petition is as
follows:
To the Honorable, the Senate and House of Rep
reSentatiues Of The United States, Washington, d. C.:
On January 4, 1883, Il bill, No. 1916 was intro
dueed in the House of Representatives by Hon.
Marion Biggs, of California, entitled "a bill for
the investigation of the mining debris question
in the State of California" The undersigned
believing that such an investigation is uncalled
for, beg leave to submit a few reasons why this
bill should not become law:
First-The question has already been investi-
gated by United States and State authority, re-
partments at Washington and Sacramento, and
in all its bearings has been passed upon by the
United States Circuit Court of California Ninth
District) in the celebrated Sawyer decision, in
the case of Edwards Woodruff vs. The North
Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company ct al. Said
decision having been appealed from, TO the
United States Supreme Court, and by the appel
liant Withdrawn previous to adjudication by that
Court, the decision of the lower Court has been
accepted as the final settlement of the issue.
Second-A re-eXamination can add nothing
to the information now on file, but may renew
and prolong an agitation that will iniure both
sections, and that can only end in the complete
affirmation of the adjudication as made by both
Federal and State Courts. Also, the re-opening
OF this question, as proposed, creates a feeling
of unrest to the people of the great Sacramento
Valley, who have spent hundreds of thousands
of dollars to preserve their homes, the valleys
navigable river channels, and incidentally the
Bay and harbors of San Francisco.
Third-Hydraulic mining being private in
dustry prosecuted for private gain in which the
Government has no interest whatever, the ap-
preparation of funds for the purpose proposed in
the bill is inconsistent with governmental
policy.
Fourh-For the truth of all these assertions
we most respectfully refer you..to documents on
file at Washington, relating to the debris con-
troyersy, and also to the uniform decisions in
the numerous cases tried by all the Courts both
Federal and State, against the use of river chan
nels as places of deposit for mining tailings
and we also beg to refer you to the last River and
Harbor Act, relating to this question and to the
harbor of New York (approved August 5, 1885,
and found on pages 10 and % respectively.