The record-union., 1896-01-30


work. It has met from time to time
and acted with more or less of wisdom
or error.
Recently it was again called together
to consider the imminence of the dan
ger Of total destruction of the chief
waterway of the State. Thereupon the
Los Angeles Express" and some less
prominent journals denounced the
whole movement and denounced it as
local and sectional; that it should not
have public support because it was an
exclusive and sectional matter not con-
cerning other parts of the State, evi-
IDENTIFY, since they had not been invited
to cooperate.
The Record Union took exception
to such expression and set out the rea-
sons why the matter is not sectional,
but is the concern of the whole people,
since it involves the maintenance or
destruction of enormous taxable values,
for one thing. Now comes the Los An
geles Express" and disclaims opposing
river Improvement, but reiterating that
only one-third Of the counties were in
the convention or invited to 1t; that
the whole State being interested in
river and harbor improvement, and as
any appropriations made must come
from Congress in the river and harbor
appropriation bill, the whole State
should have been represented in the
River Convention.
We are confident that the river county
people would be only too glad to have
all parts of the State generously come
to their aid, morally and practically
but the fact is that whenever this has
been suggested, papers such as the
Express supposedly representative,
have declared that the river question
concerned only river counties, and was
purely a local matter" Even State
legislators and officials have repeatedly
and narrow -mindedly given utterance
to such sentiments, until the river coun-
ties have finally settled down to the
conviction that if anything is to be
done, they must do it, and put up the
coin for the current expense, as they
have been doing.
The idea of the Los Angeles Express"
is that all the State should have been
in the river convention; that harbor,
river, bay, shoal, breakwater and es-
tuary improvements should all have
been considered, and a grand petition
and giant demand have been sent UP in
lump fer all we want, since thel We
would be likely to receive more than
under any other form of procedure;
that we would be likely to receive in
this way something for each section.
We quote from our cornered contem-
poraPy:
1t would have been better judg-
ment for the whole State to have
gotten together, through representa-
tives of all sections and combined in
asking Congress to improve, not one
harbor or one river, but something for
each of the several sections. It makes
appropriations for the Susquehanna
River and Chesapeake Bay. the James
River, the sounds off North Carolina
Charleston harbor and Savannah and
numerous other bodies of water which
lie between the same degrees Of lati-
tude as the State of California, and
there is no reason why on this coast
only few thousand dollars should be
given for one stream.
The parallel" of the Express is
most unfortunate for it-when did the
people of the Susquehanna, Chesapeake
Bay. the James River, Savannah land
numerous other bodies of water within
the same degrees of latitude as Cali
fornia" ever get together and present
their claims in a lump? Have they not
each alone and unaided always pressed
upon Congress the views Of the inn
portance of their respective clainsf
Herein lies the error of the Express, .
and as it reflects, we regret to say, a
very considerable sentiment based upon
misapprehension, we have deemed it
California river improvement question
stands solitary and alone because the
conditions are wholly phenomenal and
are unparalleled and solitary. Second
ly, piecemeal and patchwork appro-
priations are not desirable, and are Of
small practical value in the treatment
of the Sacramento and Feather Rivers,
artificial damage to which has taken
them out of the category of usual harbor
and river improvement by Government.
Thirdly, it is not so much question of
immediate appropriation in the matter
of the rivers, as it is to bring the Gov
ernment to commitment to the contract
system of treatment, as was done years
ago in the case of the Mississippi.
A hundred thousand dollars appro-
priated at one session to advance Gov
ernment work in harbor might at the
close of the expenditure be well repre-
sented by 100000 worth of permanent
results, to which from time to time
other work could be added until the
proposed whole should be completed.
Not at all SO with river treatment. On
the contrary our river problem involves