The record-union., 1893-12-12
4 DANGEROUS DOCTRINE ABAN-
DONED.

Some weeks ago our contemporary, the
ThemiS, announced in as plain English as
could be commanded, that before Con-
gress and with congressional commit
tees the river reclamation matter must
be presented with the scheme of the recla-
nation of private lands as the prime
purpose. 1t was claimed that the Gov
ernment has carried on extensive works
on the Mississippi for the main purpose,
not Of river improvement, but of private
land reclamation and protection-river
improvement being but an incident. AS
our exchange put it:
The protection of private proverty is the
object while the preservation of the naviga-
bility OF the river Is the incident of the Mis-
sissippi River improvement scheme
The RECoRD-UNIoN promptly pointed
out the danger of such position. We
showed that the statement was not true
that the Government had engaged in the
reclamation of private property, but that
on the contrary it had fixed policy to
the contrary, and that we cannot afford to
ask it to change it, since once the door is
opened to the doing of work by the Gov
ernment for private benefit, that moment
the very substructure of free govern
ment is assaulted.
What the Government does do, we
pointed out, is in line with wise and long
established policy, to wit, to conserve the
navigability of the rivers. the free high
ways, over which, in the interests of all
the people, it retains control.
Where the confinement or relief or
training of river by the Government
prevents overflow and damage to private
property. there accrues an incidental pri-
vate benefit, that the Government neither
encourages nor discourages, since it cuts
no figure whatever in it's policy.
All which is so true, so well under
stood and so unquestionably wise, that
there is no room for contradiction. We
refer to it now again. not for contention
with our exchange. but to completely
disabuse the minds of the people of any
possible error on this subject. Our con-
temporary is unwilling to be placed in
the awkward attitude of having made
such an egregious blunder as it did make,
and now attempts to explain that what it
meant was that relief canals to the Sacra-
mento River ought to be cut across lands.
and that such works would tend to pre-
vent bank and levee- breaking and over
flow of private lands, and encourage the
securing and the carrying capacity of the
river. Whereupon it nsively asks the
RECORD UNION to come over to its side
and help it ''get canal" etc.
There are some things amusing when
not ridiculously absurd, and this beg
ging of the question is absurd. The REC
oRD-UNIoN is no opponent of relief
canals or any other works that engineer
ing science may determine and the Gov
ernment resolve upon, to effect restora-
ton of river navigability, which we cham
pioned years before our weekly contem-
porary was born. We have, so far as this
question in hand is concerned, nothing to
do with the methods OF reclamation Of
the river, and stand for all that are accept
able to the Government engineers, if only
they will speedily settle upon some sys-
tenn, comprehensive and likely to be
effective.
What we are concerned about, however,
is that there shall not 60 abroad any sort
of an idea that the Government of the
United States ever engages in the reclaim
alton or protection of private lands as
main object, or at all, in correcting nav
igable rivers and conserving their integ-
rity. We are concerned that no one shall
suggest any such thing to Congress or to
. congressional committee in behalf of
California, since it would have decidedly
bad effect, and fix upon this people OF the
valley OF the Sacramento the stigma of
ignorance. Now that our contemporary
abandons its preposterous statements, let
MS hope that there will be no more talk
about any such scheme. We have enough
to do to secure activity on the part of
Congress at all without suggesting to it