The record-union., 1893-01-21
PROCLAMATION AND THE RIVER.

1t might just as well be understood
now as later that the State will not. can
mot expend money to reclaim private
land. 1t is possible for the State to lay
out plan for reclamation of a systematic
and comprehensive character; it may
do as it has done for other movements, by
tpremiums, encourage reclamation by
designating certain general lines and
gathering certain data upon which to en-
able lowland owners to plat a series of
works, and to take steps to raise the
means to accomplish the end in view.
But it is against State policy to expend
the money OF all the people to enhance
private values. To do so would be to
open the door to evils little less disas-
trous than those of anarchy.
Whatever appropriations are made by
State or Nation for river treatment al
ways have been and always will be for
the conservation of the navigability of the
stream. That is a natural policy, one
that is of natural growth, and
that follows good government as matter
that is inevitable. So our tule land own
ers should make up their minds that if
their lands are ever reclaimed they must
furnish the means to do the work. The
State may, as we have said, prepare a
plan for comprehensive reclamation, but
beyond the initiative expense to that end,
It viii not and dare not go.
In this connection it is timely to utter
an indignant protest against the persist
ent and annoying pushing into debate of
reclamation and river questions, of the
idea that the Federal Government does
anything in the way Of reclamation. Yet
here we have it gravely asserted in the
Drainage Convention that the General
Government threw away S60,OO0 as far as
regards the reclamation of land, in re-
pairing the Payne break. 1t is more than
singular that men of common intelligence
will insist upon Indulging in such state
ments.
The General Government did nothing
of the kind. 1t did not throw away
100000, or any sum, so far as regards
reclamation was concerned, because it
never considered the question at all. 1t
spent money to repair the Payne break
only in order to prevent grave injury to
the navigable channel of the Sacramento
River by such diversion as was threaten
IL l..
below the point where the current was
checked by the diversion. Everyone
knows this who is intelligent upon the
subject. The closing of the break had
nothing to do with reclamation whatever
or with any benefits to low lands If
benefit followed it was merely incidental,
and not at all within the contemplation
OF the Government.
So, too, in this same convention a great
deal Of time was squandered in insisting
that in the matter of draining the tule
basin and reclaiming low lands the State
and the General Government should
carry on such work in conjunction. In
deed, it was long and seriously argued
that private and State prosperity in this
whole matter are SO interviewer that
there can not well be any separation.
This is simply waste of breath.
But there is a level upon which State,
General Government and private owners
in a sense meet. They can work stimuli
taneously and helpfully. each on its own
line, and they should do so, and by such
dmeliness each will conserve the work of
the other. The General Government
should comprehensively and thoroughly
treat the river to increase its carrying ca
pacity, and restore and preserve its navi-
gability; the State must by law prepare
thez way through which comprehensive
and systematic reclamation can be ac-
complished; the landowners must do
the work and their acreage foot the bill,
which it can do and make 500 per cent. of
profit for them.
All these things will be best done if
done at the same time. For river treat
ment for navigability incidentally aids
reclamation work. and drainage i'm