The record-union., 1895-05-15
GOVERNMENT DEBRIS COMMISSION.
Plea for License to Use the Old Lib.
erty Hill Dam.
Private Speculation Against Public
Interest-PersonaIP Plea to Revive
Common Nuisance.

The United States Debris Commission
met at their Office in the Flood Building,
consider the application to use the Liberty
Hill dam for the purposes of hydraulic
mining. I. G. Phelps appeared on be-
half of the applicants, and w. L. Phipps
and r. L. Devlin, manager and attorney,
respectively. represented the ti-Debris
Association of the Sacramento Valley.
Mr.. Phipps said, in substance: Here
tofore dams have ordinarily been con-
structed voluntarily as an investment for
permanent use. their stability being
therefore of the highest concern to their
owners. Hydraulic mining dams, how
ever. are 'makeshifts' always. The min
ers build them only because they have to;
they are constructed as temporary eX-
pedient, and are abandoned sooner or
later without regard to the consequences,
which means that they offer nothing but
Dretext for the security on account OF
which the law requires the building OF
restraining works. The evasion OF The
law by such counterfeit structures rem
ders hydraulic mining now as serious a
menace as 1t was when prohibited and
condemned by the courts.
The Liberty Hill dam can only hold
back great mass of debris for little
while. The spill-way which relieves II
may be choked at any time with floating
logs or boughs OF trees. The pressure
then brought upon the face of the dam
would demoish it, but there are many
other contingencies that make it inse-
cure.
THE proposition is 10 build it higher,
but its strength will be diminished III the
ratio of its hight. The prime function of
the commission is not TO license but to
restrain; not to take chances with dana
but in the interest of the Government,
to see that no chances are taken. There
is no guarantee-none is possible-that
this dam will serve even its immediate
selfish purpose; but that it can be made
permanent nobody believes; this is not
even proposed.
THE decisions of the courts preclude
speculation as to the security or lnse-
curity of restraining dams. They and
the Caminettj law contemplate as allow
able only such dams as are inde-
structible and permanent. There is no
dam, nor will there ever be such dam
CONSTRUCTED tor the purpose OF Impound-
ing hydraulic debris. In one year more
this Liberty Hill dam will be filled to its
crest, even though no mining be done,
by washings from the old deposits of
debris behind It,
what, then, if it has stood ten years;
suppose it should stand ten years more?
IL might as well break now and send
down all the debris it is proposed to hold
back for a while. The value OF the prop
erty threatened by it depends upon its
uninterrupted use and permanent secu-
rity from injury and fear of injury. But
why should we discuss this case again
Il, i l. -
considered by the United States Circuit
Court in the case of Hardt VS.. the Liberty
Hill Company, in which this same dam
was Internationally condemned and it's
owners perpetually enjoined not to use
it."
Mr.. Devlin dwelt upon the supreme
Importance of preserving the nayigability
of our rivers-a matter of concern to the
entire nation. sit is an element he
said, sin the strength and wealth of the
United States, and interests every citizen.
On the other hand, hydraulic mining is a
private enter prise. In case of conflict of
interest between great public and lit
tie private interest the latter must have
the highest character on which to main
tain Its claim.
1.-The commission is now occup pied
really in reviewing case in which by
draulic mining was condemned IN the
United States Circuit Court as both a
private and public nuisance, the main
issue III the case being the character of
this Liberty Hill dam. Judge Sawyer
had the benefit of inspecting il personality;
beside, he had and closely studied ample
evidence by expert engineers on both
sides. The commission, it would seem,
will have to have better evidence than
could be produced in that celebrated case
to warrant the granting of a permit to
use this dam; but no such evidence exists
All subsequent experience confirms the
wisdom OF SaWyer's decision. AS he
said, 1T is impossl ble to be satisfied of the
sufliciency of this DAM
suppose there were no commission?
Then the applicants would have to
appeal to the courts; but the case has
been unequivocally decided judicially al
ready on ali the essential points involved.
To say the least, it is impossible to be
certain OF the character OF this dam. This
being SO, can the commission feel safe in
jeepardizing a public interest in order to
be liberal or charitable toward persons
engaged in a private speculation? The
Government has spent as high as
SO, 600, 900 a year on its rivers.
Entrusted with the guardianship of a
serious public interest, the commission
should realize that. first of all, they are
charged with the conservation OF the
navigable waters OF California. 1t is with
them not right but an act of grace to
issue permit to prosecute hydraulic
mining. They could, If they would, de-
cline to grant any such license whatever;
in such case they would be sure Of their
action, otherwise they may or may not be
sure OF the wisdom of their action. If it
has not reasonable doubt, but any
doubt whatever, i'll the matter of this ap-
plication, 1t should resolve that doubt in
the favor OF the Government and the
people,"
Mr. Phelps said: Judge Sawyer knew
nothing about this dam. We appeal to
the engineers. our property has been
idle long time, and we have been under
great expense. 1t IS the province OF these
engineers to determine the sufficiency OF
dams. We will build permanent and
effective restraining works. and the COM
mission can pass upon them.
IF these works comply with the re-
quirements of the board, we have no
tear but we will be allowed TO use them.
The gentlemen who oppose the granting
Of this application say that dams should
be built by or under the supervision OF
those who might be injured by them, i'll
case thoy prove Intellectual. Now, their
engineer. Mr.. Allardt. built this DAM"
1t was stated that the commission had
considered and agreed upon their report
before hearing the discussion as above
outlined, and that ali that was left for
them to do TO completely dispose OF the
matter was TO sign 1t.
SOCIAL AND PERSONAL
J. w. Kaseberg of Roseville is at the