The San Francisco call., 1904-04-09
Notes on Mines.

on among California mining men rel
ative 10 the effect Of the decision by
the Supreme Court Of California in
the case Of Yuba County against the
Kate Hayes Mining Company. The
matter came before the Supreme Court
on appeal from the Superior Court Of
Yuba County, +. A. Davis being the
Judge who sat The action was
brought in the Superior Court in Tuba
County by the county, as owner of
certain lots OF land in the city of
MarysviIle on which are situated the
County Courthouse, County jail, Hall
OF Records and County Hospital, and
also as owner Of the wagon bridge
crossing the Yuba River from the foot
OF d street in Marysville.
A decree was sought enjoining the
defendants from discharging debris
from their mineral lands into Sweet
land Creek and the Yuba River or any
branch thereof, to the injury of the
property Of the county. During the
proceedings the action was dismissed
as TO all the defendants except the
Kate Hayes Mining Company and
Charles n Miller, its superintendent
The Supreme Court has denied the mo-
tion Of the mining company for a new
trial.
The California Miners Association,
through c. NJ. Belshaw, president. and
Edward H. Benjamin. secretary, sent
out circular letter addressed TO every
prominent mining man in California,
with which have been enclosed copies
of the decision Of the Supreme Court.
In the letter allusion is made to the de-
cision and the question is asked:
What effect viii this decision have
upon the quartz, drift and river dredge
mining operations throughout the
State2" A large number of responses
have been received. hundreds in all, 10
date With one exception every one of
the writers-all practical miners-as-
sert that the effect will be bad and
that tx threatens great danger TO every
branch Of the mining industry in Cali
fornia.
Some time ago z. A. Belcher wrote
an opinion which was published in The
Call referring TO the Kate Hayes deci-
sion. As may be remembered, he took
the view that no danger was threat
ened. Several hundred miners take the
opposite side Of the controversy Since
the famous North Bloomfield decision
no mining question has been ap-
preached with more earnestness by
California miners than that raised by
the Kate Hayes case.
The essential point involved in the
opinion Of the Supreme Court is con-
tsined in paragraph in which it is set
forth: 1t is true that the evidence
failed to show that defendants were
mining by the hydraulic process. but
admittedly. they were mining by tbs
ground sluice process. which, accord
ing TO the evidence. produced the same
effect in kind as the hydraulic process
only 10 less degree"
These words, in the copies of the Su-
preme Court decision that have been
circulated among the miners by
Messrs. Belshaw and Benjamin, are set
in blackfaced type. that they may be
at once noticed by the miners. To
these words the miners in their an
swers 10 the queries have principally
devoted themselves.
Before giving extracts from the let
ters that have been received from the
miners by the executive officers of the
California Miners Association, some
extracts from the Supreme Court de-
cision are republished:
The complaint alleged that the prop
erty OF plaintiff IYuba County, is ad-
5acent to the Yuba River, which emp
ties into the Feather River at or near
the city Of Marysville, and that the
defendants are in possession OF, work
ing and operating by the hydraulic
process and the ground sluice process
certain mines and mining claims in Ne
vsda County and discharging the de-
bris therefrom into Sweetland Creek,
a tributary OF the Yuba River, about
three miles in length, whence said de-
bris is carried down the Yuba River
and is deposited and lodged in the beds
and channels Of the river and upon
plaintiffs property. and viii continue
70 do so unless restrained. The COM
plant alleged the general effect OF such
mining operations Of defendants upon
the Huba River. which is, by the de-
posits Of debris therein, to raise the
bed and channel OF the river and
cause the lands on each side thereof
in times Of flood. in the absence OF
high and secure levees, to be covered
with water and debris, to the great
damage Of said lands.
The material question here was
whether il was near enough to the
river 20 be damaged by such overflow
thereof as might be caused by the acts
complained Of. The court was justified
in concluding that the operations of
defendants constituted a public nuis-
ancc, especially Injurious to the plain
tiff as n property owner. and there
fore one TO enJoin which plaintiff could
maintain an action. AS to the county
as a property owner, the nuisance is
also a private nuisance. The county is
rot suing 70 protect the rights Of 9TH
ers. but purely in its proprietary ca
pacity. as the owner OF certain real
property"
Extracts from other paragraphs in
The decision are given, because therein
are treated considerations which seem
10 the miners TO be Of Importance.
Tine decree en5oining defendants. their
officers. agents. etc. from discharging
tho debris snto Sweetland Greek, or
Tuba River. or any OF their tributaries.
and from dumping or placing the same