The record-union., 1895-07-03
A MOUNTAIN CONFESSION.

A MOUNTAIN CONFESSION.
The Mountain Democrat, Placerville.
indulges itself in long lecture. directed
to the conviction of the people of the val
ley that they have not been injured to
any appreciable extent by hydraulic
mining. It is case. says the Democrat,
of damnnns absque anjuria-that is, in
jury without damage.
The argument of our contemporary 10
that there were floods in the valley be-
fore hydraulic mining had done injury
to the valley streams; that twenty years
ago engineers reported that the moving
debris, "the combined result of farming
and mining" had clogged the Sacra.
mento River. and that the resulting dam.
age was confined to towns and tule lands
close to the river below high-water mark,
and that such damage as was done was
not justification for confscation of mill
ions of dollars worth Of valuable mining
property.
The conclusion of tho Democrat is that,
being forewsrned, the valley il in the
swim without the fault of the hill
tribes''; that, as the people along the
rivers must have foreseen the inevitable
results of disturbing the soil by natural
erosion, farming and mining. to the navi-
CATION of the rivers, they should have
taken precautionary measures and have
got up out of the mud; that the injury is
sediment carried in the Sacramento is
less than in several great navigab!e
streams subject only to the effects of
farming and erosion; that. $50 far as the
cow counties are concerned. they have no
kiok," and should bea enjoined from
believing and paving the ground"
This attempted witty reply to the COM
plant of the valley exposes its own
weak ness. It is hollow and untrue. But
If it were conceded that the river towns,
cities and lowland people had warning, it
outs no figure in the case. The questions
are: Have the lowland dwellers and river
towns the right to be where they are?
Were they, the towns. lawfully located
where they are? Have the lowland peo-
pie the right to occupy the lands to which
they have title? Is the Government Of the
country bound to protect them in those
rights?
reply, and that in the Affirmative. 1t
makes no sort of difference, even If 1t is
true, that there is some wash into the
rivers from farming lands lying upon the
fianks of the hills. For, AZ we have re-
peatedly shown, the injury that A does to
B cannot justify or palliate G in his act of
injury to B.
Suppose it to be true, as the Democrat
alleges, that DR.. Logan twenty years ago
proportion to water as is to 1000. what
possible defense does that constitute for
the hydraulic miner washing thousands
of acres of hill sediment, debris and de-
tritus into the streams now? The COM
monest observation discloses the enor-
nous quantity of mountsinlandithat has
been by the artificial process of mining
moved into the rivers and their tribu-
taries. II shows to the most superficial
examiner that the beds OF many tributary
streams have been raised within q COM
paratively short period from twenty to
seventy feet, and that the filling is wholly
from hydraulic mines, the matter being
traceable directly to these injuxy-doing
agencies.
The argument of the Democrat defeats
itself. It amounts to a confession that she
hydraulic miners will not thank the
paper for making. It il, in fact, de-
fiance. and summed up is this: "In time
you fellows in the valleys would have
been buried in mud anyhow, and you
should not, therefore, complain If we do
the lob q century or two in advance Of
the processes Of nature" Are the hy-
draulic miners ready to occupy that posi-
ton in this controversy?