The record-union., 1898-01-21
penditure of about 500, 900 for the i'm

that if the wingdams did not do the
work the dredger would be used to throw
the sediment over back of them.
Mr.. Forbes asked if the expressions Of
the Chairman at the last meeting had
been his own opinion or the opinion Of
the board, and Mr.. Corcoran said that
1t was his own opinion and the board
had never given an opinion as a board.
He did not believe that dredger would
do the work
T. B. Hall said that the engineers had
given an opinion that dredging would
do no good at present. If it seems that
the wingdams will not do the work, he
would favor making a contract with
some dredging company and let it do the
work
Senator Doty said that he had helped
pass the bill, but had not wished to be
member of the board. He felt that
opinions of land owners, expressed at a
late meeting, had been unjust and that
if they were as familiar with the mat
ter as members of the board are, they
would not make such structures on his
action. He was trying, as We're other
members of the board, to do his duty
for the best good of the State and they
could not be expected, representing the
whole State as they do, to be drawn into
acting in the interest of individuals, as
they wished it to- The board cannot
turn the river upside down without the
consent of the Government, but it has
associated Major Heuer with it, in order
that it may work in harmony with the
Government engineers. When he was
told by the engineers that dredging is
best, he will vote to have the dredger.
Mr.. Patterson said that as soon as
the necessity of a dredger was shown by
the engineers, he would vote to procure
one.
Mr.. Markley said that the engineers
had not yet recommended dredger and
there was another thing. 1t did not
wish either to become involved in itl-
cation over the patent on the dredger,
as the United States is now involved in
a suit.
Mr.. Corcoran said that it was not wise
in the land owners to make faces at the
board or call it names, as a way OF get
ting it to do as they want. The board is
composed of gentlemen who are con-
scientiously trying to do their duty to-
ward the whole State and ought not
to be criticised as in a resolution passed
Dy the late river convention.
Mr.. Andrews of Tehama said the res
olution spoken of was not passed by
the convention, as a small majority ot
it believed in the integrity OF the
board. He disagreed with the board,
however, in its views of its obligation
to carry out the provisions of the law
He was glad to hear them state their
opinions frankly, in order that the
people might know where they stand.
He did not, however, think the reasons
stated by them, with the exception OF
that of Mr. Markley, We're good.
The State certainly did not want to
purchase dredger if it could not get
clear title to use it.
Mr.. Bingham said that he thought
the action of the board was proper, for
it would not be wise to spend half the
appropriation for a dredger when 1t is
a question as to whether it will do the
work claimed for it or not. He thought
the provision not mandatory.
Mr. Forbes said that every taxpayer
in the State who helped pay for the
appropriation had a right to criticise
the action of the board in refusing to
carry out the first provision of the law,
which is that the dredger must be built
from the appropriation. If the board
refuses to carry out the law, although
he had no personal feeling whatever
against it's members, he, as a taxpayer,
intended to invoke the courts to COM
pei them to do so.
W. NJ Cutter of Yuba said that he
had worked hard for the passage of
the law, and there was certainly no
question as to what the law meant. If
it had not been supposed by the Leg
islature that a dredger would be built
from the appropriation, the law would
never have been passed and the money
taken from the pockets of the taxpay-
ers 70 lie idle in the treasury when
times are as hard as now. If the
law was not intended to mean what it
reads its promoters should not have
come monkeying round the Legislature
and asking it to pass it and appropriate
SO large a sum. 1t is evident that the
wingdams and waste weirs will not
consume more than half of it, and if
not expended it will be covered back
into the treasury and the law will be
repealed.
Mr.. Corcoran said that the law Off
GERS of the State We're agreed that
the board could build the dredger or
not, as they pleased. They could use
all the appropriation for the San Joa-
quin River, or all for the Sacramento
River, as they wished, or spend it in
engineering work. The Attorney
General said So When the Governor
asked him to go on the board ne
asked the Governor if the board was
compelled to build a dredger, and was
answered that it was not. AS the
Attorney-General decides, it is not
compelled to build it. These gentle
men could not dredge ten miles from
the lower part of the river up without
purchasing S500,000 worth of land to
put the ,slickens on. 1t is different on
the Mississippi and Missouri. The
board viii proceed in accordance with
the opinion of the Attorney General.
Mr.. Andrews asked If the Attorney
General had given it as his opinion
that the board would not have to build
the dredger, and Mr.. Corcoran said that
he had not been asked on that particu-
lar point, but had given his opinion on
the general powers of the board. He
did not think the gentlemen wished 20
see the work of river reclamation
killed, as 1t would be If suit We're com
menced and the appropriation tied up
If the board goes on in it's present
course. and ii proves to be right, let it
have the credit. If it fails by not get
ting the dredger built it can be blamed.
1t is a big problem to decide offhand,
and he felt that the board was enti-
I'D to have fair trial. 1t does not
want antagonism but cooperation. The
bringing of a suit would defeat both
UrC0Eer n of