Sutter County CA Archives History - Books .....Chapter 7 The Fight Against Hydraulic Mining 1924
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ca/cafiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Joy Fisher http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00001.html#0000031 January 5, 2012, 12:24 pm

Book Title: History Of Yuba And Sutter Counties

CHAPTER VII 
THE FIGHT AGAINST HYDRAULIC MINING 

    Sutter and Yuba Counties have seen days other than care-free. During the
years when the Sacramento Valley was menaced by the hydraulic mining process,
stout hearts and willing hands were required to meet the exigencies brought
about by the actions of the mountaineers. Strained relations grew up between the
mountain and valley sections, and litigation in the courts was long-drawn-out.
Owners of mines evaded, by every hook and crook, the court processes issued
after the valley watchmen sent into the mountains had secured the evidence. 

Work of the Anti-Debris Associations 

    To give strength to the cause of the valley in defending the homes of its
citizens, the Anti-Debris Association of the Sacramento Valley was formed, and
later on it became necessary to organize a State-wide body. This latter was
known as the California Debris Association. 

    The complaints drawn by the attorneys employed by these associations were
voluminous. Always they pointed out that until the process of hydraulic mining
was begun, the rivers were clear streams of water running in well-defined
channels, between natural banks sufficiently high to confine the waters and
protect the lands adjacent thereto and upon the margin of the streams from
overflow and from damage by flood waters. The point was stressed that the grade
of the rivers and their tributaries from the dumps of the hydraulic mines to
where the stream debouched into the valley exceeded thirty feet to the mile, but
that from there to the mouth of the stream the grade was much less, varying from
one to five feet to the mile. The complaint also averred, with good ground, that
the greater part of the tailings and debris from hydraulic mining operations was
swept away and carried by the force of the water down through the defiles and
canyons of the river into the valley, and that the deposit of the said mining
tailings and debris in the headwaters of the rivers increased the grade of the
stream and made it more uniform, and also made the bottom smoother by filling
deep holes therein, and thereby facilitating the downward flow of the tailings
through the mountain courses of the streams. 

    It was made plain in the court papers that from the place of debouchment of
the rivers into the valley down to the mouth of the river, owing to the great
reduction in the grade of the stream, a large portion of the slickens, sand,
clay, and small stones from the hydraulic mines, instead of passing through the
channel of the river, choked and filled its channels and overflowed its banks
and the adjacent lands. 

Hydraulicking Defined 

    Hydraulic mining was defined, as then practiced, as a mode or process of
mining for gold through which high banks of earth and gravel, usually composed
of strata containing gold enough to pay for the washing, and strata which did
not contain gold, were washed and removed from their natural position, after
being shaken up and shattered by means of immense blasts of powder, into
sluiceways and flumes, and thence into the natural watercourses and rivers, by
means of large streams of water forced through iron pipes and thence discharged
from nozzles attached to the pipes, with great force and velocity, against the
banks of earth and gravel, by a heavy water-pressure of from 100 to 500 feet in
height, the gold being separated from the earth, sand and gravel by the action
of the water, and retained in the pavements of sluiceways and flumes, whilst the
refuse matter, consisting of boulders, cobbles, stones, pebbles, sand and clay,
generally known as "tailings" or "debris" from the mines, were washed into and
down the natural courses and rivers and deposited in the beds and channels
through their entire length, the heavier portion thereof being first deposited
and lodged in the upper portions of the watercourses and rivers, whilst the
lighter portions were carried further down and deposited in the lower portions
of the streams. 

Magnitude of the Menace 

    Mining by the hydraulic process had been practiced and carried on to some
extent in the mountainous part of the State of California for twenty years prior
to the commencement of the litigation. It attained great dimensions about the
year 1876, and from that time was carried on extensively, principally in the
counties of Butte, Yuba, Sierra, Nevada and Placer, and on a small scale in some
other counties, as in the hilly parts of a few of the valley counties lying east
of the Sacramento River. 

    The tailings from a part of the hydraulic mines operated in Nevada County,
and the tailings from most of those operated in Yuba County, were discharged
into Bear River, which stream dumps into Feather River. This was interesting not
only to Yuba and Sutter Counties, but also to Sacramento County. The three
counties were for years contributors, through monthly payments made by the
supervisors, to a fund for meeting the expenses of the valley watchmen sent into
the mountains to investigate and make frequent reports of violations of the rule
to "so use your property as not to damage that of your neighbor." 

    Operators of certain mines and mining claims located in the vicinity of You
Bet, in Nevada County, and near Greenhorn Creek, were among the most persistent
offenders. Their tailings were dumped into Greenhorn Creek about a mile above
its junction with Bear River. Some of the banks washed by water were as high as
150 feet, of which the upper two-thirds consisted of earth and sand and the
lower one-third of coarse blue gravel, the latter material being impossible of
being worked out without carrying with it superincumbent strata of lighter
material. 

    It was charged that about 2000 cubic yards of solid material composed of
cobblestones, boulders, gravel and clay were dumped daily into the river and its
tributaries. The ground sluice process, at the same time, was considered as
fraught with as much danger to the valley streams as the hydraulic process. At
the time the hydraulickers were "putting in their best licks," the material
being washed from the mines seemed almost inexhaustible. The mine-owners usually
claimed the right of mining by their processes, upon the theory that they had an
easement to deposit their tailings in the rivers and streams. The earth they
used during each mining season was estimated at 600,000 cubic yards. 

    Not until the famed Sawyer decision against the hydraulickers was rendered,
did the valley residents breath easily. Following the forced cessation of
hydraulic mining, through the court's injunction, the valley reaches of the
rivers that had been choked up began perceptibly to cut out. or "scour." The
United States government and the State helped out some through a plan of "river
correction," placing wing-dams, and constructing cut-offs to carry the
flood-waters and to help the rivers to "scour." The effect soon became very
perceptible in the vicinity of Marysville and Yuba City. Both the Yuba and
Feather Rivers, and also the Bear River, are now showing high banks that well
control the waters. 

    The change has permitted the safe planting of orchards and vineyards outside
the levees. Young orchards may at this time be observed planted on lands where
are buried the earlier homes and fruit tracts, to a depth of from twenty-five to
thirty feet. The valley divisions of the rivers are gradually being restored to
their former and original condition, with narrow and deep channels and hard
bottoms, and with pure water running through them. In the course of a few years,
if the regulations imposed by "the present laws are adhered to, the property
along the lower reaches of the rivers will be immune from all injury of the
character that prevailed in the days of the hydraulic-mining menace. 

Litigation in State Courts 

    Suits carried through the State courts and other tribunals with little
gained by the farmers, were numerous. The case of Keys against the Little York
Mining Company and others was commenced in January, 1877. It was removed to the
Circuit Court, remanded to the State court — the order remanding having been
appealed to and affirmed by the Supreme Court — and finally tried in the State
court, in which there was a decision for the complainant. The decree obtained
was reversed on appeal in 1879, without a decision upon its merits, on the
technical ground of misjoinder of defendants. 

    In September, 1879, the city of Marysville commenced suit in the District
Court of Yuba County, presided over by Judge Phil W. Keyser. alleging the same
state of facts and asking similar relief as in other cases, A preliminary
injunction was granted. Afterwards the North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company, a
defendant in the suit, with others, filed a petition for a writ of prohibition
in the State Supreme Court, alleging that Judge Keyser was the owner of two lots
in Yuba City, which place was subject to the same river troubles as Marysville.
The Supreme Court, in July, 1881, held that Judge Keyser was disqualified to act
in the case, as he was interested. 

    The suit of The People against the Gold Run Mining Company and others,
followed in July, 1881, to restore original conditions on Bear River. This
resulted in a very able opinion by Judge Temple of Sonoma County, formerly a
member of the Supreme Court of the State of California. Judge Temple's decision
was in favor of the valley, but the miners remained obstinate and continued
their operations under cover. 

    The case of Sutter County against the Miocene Mining Company, started in
June, 1881, was another battle from which but little good flowed. 

Relief in the Federal Courts 

    Not until Col. Edwards Woodruff, owner of the Woodruff Block in Marysville,
and of two tracts of land in Yuba County, came forward and permitted his name to
be used as a non-resident, as required by law, did the people of the valley make
any headway. The Woodruff suit was started against the North Bloomfield Gravel
Mining Company and others, in the United States Circuit Court; and through it
came the permanent relief the valley men had sought through all the years of
litigation. 

    January 7, 1884, was the day they had been hoping for. That is the date upon
which the famous Sawyer decision was handed down, perpetually enjoining
hydraulic mining operations in California. There were great demonstrations of
joy throughout the valley, at the news of the decision in favor of the farmers.
Strong men wept, as bells pealed and whistles blew the note of victory for the
valley. Stores and business houses were illuminated that night; bonfires' blazed
on every corner; cannons roared, while the church and school bells chimed in.
There was joy and delight everywhere; and real estate advanced 100 per cent in
value. From every section of the State came press notices congratulating the
farmers upon the attainment of their right to defend their homes and farms and
families. As far south as Bakersfield, felicitations were printed in the
newspapers. The people of Marysville and Yuba City could scarcely contain
themselves. 

The Sawyer Decision 

    The decision of Judge Sawyer is a voluminous one, broad and sweeping, yet
tempered with sympathy for the losers. It can be found in full, by any person
desiring to read it, in Volume No. 18 of Federal Reports, at page 753 et seq.
These reports may be found in any well-appointed law library, such as is to be
found at the Yuba County Courthouse. We quote from the concluding paragraphs of
the lengthy document, as follows: 

    "We are fully satisfied that the acts of the defendants complained of are
not authorized by any valid custom or usage, or by any valid law, statute, or
otherwise, by the State of California, or of the United States; and that
complainant is entitled to such relief as shall fully and amply protect him from
any further injuries to his property and any further encroachments upon his
rights. What shall the remedy be? It would be difficult to appreciate too highly
the importance of the mining interests. The fact is patent that immense sums of
money have been, and they are now employed in this branch of industry. The
boldness with which capitalists, and especially these defendants, have invested
large amounts of capital; the perfection to which those engaged in hydraulic
mining have brought machines and appliances for successful mining; the vast
enterprises they have undertaken and successfully carried out; the energy,
perseverance, great engineering and mining skill displayed in pursuing these
enterprises, excite wonder and unbounded admiration. In view of these
undisputed, indisputable and well-known facts, no one could possibly be more
averse than we are to applying any remedy to the grievances complained of that
must put an end to hydraulic mining, if any other can be devised permitting of
its continuance, campatible with the safety and rights of the public, the
complainant and numerous others similarly situated, of whom he is a
representative. We have therefore sought with painful anxiety some other remedy;
but none has been suggested that appears to us to be at all adequate to the
exegencies of the case, or at least more available in the present stage of the
case. Two were suggested in Mendell's report. First, the purchase of large
tracts of low lands in the valleys, which are now or may be permanently covered
with water without material injury to navigation, or other property-owners, and
turning the entire Yuba, with its debris, into them, using them as settling
reservoirs. Secondly, the building of immense impounding dams at suitable points
on the river, to hold back the heavy portions of debris. 

    "The first seemed to he regarded as too expensive to he feasible. The second
is the only one suggested and urged in this case, and much testimony has been
taken as to the practicability and safety of the plan. As is usually the case,
the views of different engineers and experts distinguished in their profession
differ widely upon points of practicability and safety. The larger number of
witnesses called, and much the larger amount of testimony, so far as mere
opinion goes, are doubtless in favor of the practicability, if sufficient means
is furnished. But all the practical experiments heretofore made, at great
expense, under the supervision of the State and of competent engineers, have
been lamentable failures. The dams constructed were doubtless, in many
instances, defective. But what guaranty have the court, and those whose lives
and property are at stake, that any future works of the kind will not also be
defective? As at present advised, with some knowledge of the operations of the
tremendous forces of nature, we cannot undertake to say, upon the mere opinion
of experts generally at variance, as in this case, however competent, that the
scheme would be practical and safe. "We cannot define in advance what work shall
be sufficient, and authorize the continuance of the acts complained of upon the
performance of any prescribed conditions. 

    "A great deal has been said about the comparative public importance of the
mining interests, and also the great loss and inconvenience to those defendants
if their operations should be stopped by injunction. But these are
considerations with which we have nothing to do. We are simply to determine
whether the complainant's rights have been infringed, and, if so, afford him
such relief as the law entitles him to receive, whatever the consequence or
inconvenience to the wrong-doers or to the general public may be. After an examination of the great questions involved, as careful and thorough as we are
capable of giving them, with a painfully anxious appreciation of the
responsibilities resting upon us, and of the disastrous consequences to the
defendants, we can come to no other conclusion than that complainant is entitled
to a perpetual injunction. But as it is possible that some mode may be devised
in the future for obviating the injuries — either one of those suggested or some
other — and successfully carried out, so as to be both safe and effective, a
clause will be inserted in the decree giving leave on any future occasion, when
some such plan has been successfully executed, to apply to the court for a
modification or suspension of the injunction. Let a decree be entered accordingly."


    Judge Deady concurred in the decision. In so doing he used the following
language, in part: 

    "I fully concur in the learned and able opinion of the Circuit Judge in both
its reason and conclusion. It exhausts the subject, and leaves nothing to be
added, either by way of statement, argument, illustration or authority "I am by
no means unconcerned or indifferent to the effect of this decision upon the
large capital invested in these mines. But it is a fundamental principle of
civilized society, and particularly such as is based upon the common law, that
no one shall use his property so as to injure the rights of another — sic utere
tuo ut alienum non laedas. 

    "From this salutary rule no one is exempt — not even the public — and the
defendants must submit to it. Without it the weak would be at the mercy of the
strong, and might make right." 

Valley Men Who Stood in the Vanguard 

    Fighting in the vanguard during all the years of the litigation were such
men as Dr. Eli Teegarden, Dr. C. E. Stone. C. P. Berry, Daniel A. Ostrom, George
Ohleyer, Edwin A. Davis, A. D. Cutts, Dr. D. P. Durst, A. C. Bingham, W. T.
Ellis, and R. G. Stanwood. 

    Other ardent and enthusiastic supporters of the valley cause were: Lyman
Ackley, John C. White, W. T. Phipps, Hugh Morrison, C. K. Dam, B. F. Dam,
Charles E. Sexey, E. A. Forbes, while filling the position of district attorney,
and Eugene P. McDaniel, the present superior judge of Yuba County, who was
promoted from the district attorneyship. 

    Still others were Kirby S. Mahon, present head of the Sutter County Superior
Court, A. C. McLaughlin, John H. Jewett, Peter Decker, N. D. Rideout, David E.
Knight, T. R. Boyd, C. R. Boyd, C. E. Wilcoxon, and T. B. Hull. 

    Firms that were ever ready with backing were: W. T. Ellis & Son; White,
Cooley & Cutts; the J. R. Garrett Company; and others. 

George Ohleyer 

    Foremost among the defenders of the valley men's rights, having his own
newspaper to mold opinion, was George Ohleyer, editor of the Sutter County
Farmer. In an editorial written on the day the news of the Sawyer decision was
rendered, Ohleyer spoke his mind as follows: 

    "The decision of Judge Sawyer is so clear and comprehensive, so full of
common law, common sense and justice, and being most ably seconded by two other
United States judges, it will prove to be a fruitless and hopeless task to
attempt to secure a modification or reversal of the judgment of the United
States Supreme Court. We, therefore, regard the conflict between the respective
parties settled beyond recall by this decision. We never had any doubt of the
final result; but it was siege of seven years' duration, hotly contested inch by
inch, during which time the stoutest hearts were wont to weaken, if but for a
moment. The struggle was for family, home, life and prosperity — all that is
worth living for — and could not be abandoned except by cowards. 

    "During this memorable contest, every engagement resulted in a partial
victory for justice and the valley, except the first, and that was a drawn
battle, made so by a cowardly court. It is needless to say we refer to the Keys
case, where life and means were offered up as a sacrifice for that decision —
evasion rather, for it was no decision at all. Step by step the battle waxed
hotter, and with each charge something was gained for the cause of right. Time
nor space will permit us at this time to note the various incidents of the long
siege. We will therefore confine ourselves to the Woodruff onslaught. 

    "It was one thing to secure an injunction in our State courts, but it was
quite another to enforce it. The mandates of our courts were evaded and treated
with the utmost contempt. This circumstance, pointed the way to the Federal
courts, whose mandates were likely to be respected. Woodruff, a non-resident,
was eligible to ask the protection of this court, and proceedings were
instituted about eighteen months ago, since which time, considering all things,
rapid progress has been made. The opposing forces sought to evade this process,
but the court told them that if they did not come into court they would be at
once enjoined. This had the desired effect, and a legal battle ensued in
December, 1882; and defendants' plea of a misjoinder was in due process
overruled, and they were notified to prepare for the final struggle. It now
became apparent that their ship had become weak and leaky; two of their chief
commanders had abandoned the concern. Others were called in, less scrupulous,
but bolder and more reckless. The course of the ship was condemned, and the new
commander changed her course and ran her onto the breakers; and on last Monday,
the 7th of January, 1884, the ship and her crew went to the bottom never to rise
again. 

    "Thus, after years of backing and filling, crimination and recrimination,
the issue has been settled by a court which has power to enforce its judgment.
This is cause for rejoicing, as well by the mountain dwellers as by the valley
residents. A new era will dawn on both sections, enterprise will develop
whatever of good lies hidden in mountain and valley, and the rights of all will
be guarded and respected. The agricultural capabilities of the mountain regions
are very great, to the development of which the Farmer will be an industrious
co-worker. Let the mountain press lead the way." 

    The public life of Ohleyer was one of active service in whatever position of
honor he was placed. A careful, conservative, conscientious, untiring worker, he
was recognized as a man of more than ordinary wisdom and ability, and was given
a place in the foremost rank in public affairs. In 1874 he was elected
supervisor of the county, and served one term; and he also served as
commissioner of Levee District No. 1. He was a member of the State
constitutional convention, and served Sutter and Yuba Counties in the
legislature from 1886 to 1888. 

    In the service of the valley, in the struggle against the hydraulic-mining
evil, he was one of the "fathers of the anti-debris movement." From its
inception he was closely identified with the work, giving his time and best
thought to the cause, as he did in all things. Among the first of the organizers
of the old Anti-Debris Association of the Sacramento Valley, he served
faithfully as manager during the active life of that body, and was then placed
on the executive committee of the State Anti-Debris Association, which body took
up the work where the Sacramento Valley Association laid it down. For the
anti-debris cause and the improvement of the rivers of the State, he made three
different trips to Washington; and his able efforts there wrought much good. 

    In connection with this service, in 1881, with other prominent men, he
organized the Sutter Publishing Company, and founded the Sutter County Farmer,
combining the Journal and the Banner. He remained as editor until 1890.
Thereafter he continued as a fluent and able writer to the press of the State. 

    To local enterprises and organizations he contributed freely of his time and
his funds. He was founder of the Farmers' Cooperative Union, the history of
which concern is presented in another chapter of this volume. He was interested
in cannery and publishing companies for many years, and at the same time handled
his farming interests. He was prominent in the State and local Granges, Patrons
of Husbandry. 

    George Ohleyer was called by death on Saturday evening, August 15, 1896. In
commenting upon his death, the editor of the Sutter County Farmer, formerly his
paper, said: 

    "The sad news of the demise of George Ohleyer came as a distinct shock to
his many friends, wdio were rejoicing that he was apparently recovering from the
amputation of his leg, made on the previous Thursday. A clot forming in the
heart was the immediate cause of death. He was born in Alsace, France, in 1831.
He came with his parents to the United States when two years of age, to Wayne
County, New York, whence the family removed to Ohio in 1835. It was in 1852 that
Ohleyer came to California and engaged in mining a short time; then he worked on
a farm in Solano County for two years, and returned to Ohio. In 1856 he came
back to California and settled in Yuba County, where he lived until 1865, when
he removed to Sutter County, remaining until death. He was married in 1855 to
Miss Ellen Guthrie, of Ohio, who still survives him. There were left four sons
and three daughters: George. Fred, Frank, Louis, Mrs. Anna Hausinger, Mrs. Mary
Frick, and Miss Ada Ohleyer." 

    Funeral services were held at the Ohleyer home, August 18 at 1 p. m. Only a
sheaf of wheat rested upon his casket, this at the request of his family. His
remains are at rest in South Butte Cemetery, to which spot they were followed by
one of the largest corteges in the history of Sutter County. At his grave the
beautiful rites of the Patrons of Husbandry were read by the Worthy Manager of
the State Grange, W. W. Greer. Those who acted as pall-bearers at the funeral
were: George W. Carpenter, Justus Greely, J. H. Kimball, L. P. Farmer, W. J.
Gray, and T. B. Hull, all of whom have since joined him on the other shore. 

The Caminetti Act 

    Seeking some way out of their difficulties after the Sawyer decision disturbed their 
plans, the miners succeeded in having a law made in Congress known as the Caminetti Act, 
named after Congressman A. Caminetti of Amador County, Cal. This act provided for impounding 
works and reservoirs to be built to the satisfaction of the California Debris Commission, 
so as not to interfere with the navigability of rivers and harbors. As was anticipated by 
the people of the valley, the law proved to be a subterfuge. The dams built under its terms 
proved to be flimsy structures behind which the debris piled high in one season, causing 
other suits to be brought in the United States courts. The California Debris Commission 
finally came to realize that the cost of the real dam the Caminetti law provided for was 
prohibitive, and they made a rule not to give further permits for the camouflaged sort, 
with the result that hydraulic mining was virtually put out of business. At the present 
time, however, $24,000,000 is being spent by the Yuba River Power Company in the 
construction of a dam at Bullard's Bar, in Yuba County, behind which it is proposed to 
rehabilitate hydraulicking. Those of the valley who remember the trying days of the 
seventies and eighties are inclined to view the enterprise somewhat differently from 
those who are strangers to the conditions of years agone. 


Additional Comments:

Extracted from:

HISTORY OF YUBA and SUTTER COUNTIES 
CALIFORNIA 
WITH 
Biographical Sketches OF 
The Leading Men and Women of the Counties Who Have Been Identified with Their
Growth and Development from the Early Days to the Present 

HISTORY BY 
PETER J. DELAY 

ILLUSTRATED 
COMPLETE IN ONE VOLUME 

HISTORIC RECORD COMPANY 
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
1924


File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ca/sutter/history/1924/historyo/chapter7339gms.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/cafiles/

File size: 26.5 Kb