The record-union., 1892-06-03
OHLBYBR'S VIEW OF IT.
He Discusses the Hydraulic Mining
Situation
Still Opposed to Restraining Dams on
Torrential Streams-No Valley
Rights Surrendered.

George Ohleyer Of Sutter County, the
leading spirit in the anti-debris agita-
ton, in communication to the Marys-
vile Appeal, says:
The actual situation of the hydraulic
mining question as a result of the agita-
ton during the past six months, is by
many not clearly understood.
"AS an illustration of the erroneous
ideas abroad, [ may cite one Instance,
which find quite general since my re-
turn from Washington.
ION going toward Sacramento on the
Red Bluff local a few days ago l met
| large real estate owner of Butte County,
near CHICO. After renewing old acquaint-
anceship he questioned Inc as 10 the de-
| brlS matter and remarked that he under
stood the farmers had relented and given
permission for mining to be resumed;
| that IN substance, If not in fact, the sue
| Cessful Htigants had surrendered the ad-
vantage the law and courts had given
them. l listened as patiently as l could,
and when he was through l asked him if
a careful consideration of recent events
| bore out such construction. He said he
| really did not know; that such was the
talk, etc.
Now, the truth is, the business of
! hydraulic mining where the same injured
the public streams and the farming lands
was outlawed as long ago as 1884. 1t
ought to have ceased then, but by one
subterfuge or another it was enabled to
continue to greater or less extent, but
nearly always in violation of some COM
pact, law or decree. Finding they could
no longer continue without rendering
themselves amenable to law and public
| opinion, they cried enough, and prom
| ised to desist until someone high in
authority and competent to deal with the
| subject should say the operations could
be resumed without producing the in
| jury complained of.
"A State Convention of miners was
| held in San Francisco which voiced the
| scattering sentiment of compliance with
| laws and DEGREES, in series ofpreambles
| and resolutions, in terms with which no
reasonable valley resident could find
| fault and retain the respect Of the great
diSinterested public.
The anti-debris people had waged a
| warfare for the purpose of securing just
! such n surrender.
THE injury was acknowledged, the
! justice OF the DEGREES was admitted and
the promise fairly and squarely given by
great convention without one dissent
| ing voice. II this was not an uncondi-
/ tlonal surrender on the part of the hy-
draulic miners to the demands of the
| valley, tail TO see what it was, or what
| else the farmers wanted. True, they
might have had misgiyings as to the good
/ faith OF the movement. or might have had
! doubts of the methods to be employed bv
which the outlawed process was to be re-
! habilitated, but they never surrendered
| one iota OF the rights secured to them by
! Congress or the courts, and what is more,
! they were not asked to make concessions
ana have made none. The valley people
| rested their case on this proposition. 1t
! is to be found in the famous Circuit Court
/ decision of January Z, 1884.
lit Will be seen that such compliance
was TO have been expected sometime in
the history of this unpleasantness. The
| faithful observance OF it rests with the
vanquished foe and not with the victors.
| Their duty, if one remains, is to observe
| that no undue advantage is taken of their
! rights, and l believe 1t is being done.
And further believe that not one intelli-
| gent riparian owner OF property in the
! valley places faith in, or would consent 10
! the construction ofrestraining dams in the
! torrential streams for the purpose of al
| lowing hydraulic mining to be resumed.
The great public is thought to want
| hydraulic gold, but there is no pretense
| anywhere that it is wanted at the cost of
/ lands and rivers and drainage ways. The
| individual or journal that would adyo-
cate such surrender would very soon be
| hushed to scorn."