Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of riffles, and amalgamation with quicksilver. The effect is to move material from one place to a lower position. The work has hitherto been confined to the beds of streams filled with tailings. The operation does what the freshets do, that is, it moves material downstream. There is no great objection to this process confined to beds of streams. Doubtless it disturbs and transports some finer matter which might never have been otherwise displaced, but this is of no particular importance.

The case is somewhat different when applied to deposits impounded in beds of streams or elsewhere. It is quite practicable, and, so far as known, permissible under the law, to work by sluices tailings which have been kept out of the river beds by barriers or otherwise, and to deliver them reworked to the beds of streams, in positions from which damage to navigable waters may result.

As the law stands, so far as the act of March 1, 1893, is concerned, while the hydraulic miner is required to deposit his tailings securely, the sluice miner may, perhaps in a legal manner, remove the tailings from the reservoir without any obligation to restrain them in their new positions.

Perhaps the scale of this kind of work may be so small as to be unworthy of notice, and perhaps if it should become important the courts would intervene by injunction, under section 6 of river and harbor act, approved September 19, 1890.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE RIVERS.

In addition to its duties for the regulation of hydraulic mining the Commission is required by the provisions of the act to mature plans for the improvement of the rivers whose channels have been injured by débris resulting from mining operations, and to survey and determine the practicability of storage sites in the tributaries or in the plains, basins, swamps, and tule lands adjacent to said rivers for storage of water or débris, or as settling reservoirs in connection with the improvements of the rivers, by preventing deposits of débris therein, or for affording relief in flood times, or for flushing reservoirs in low-water season, and in general to devise methods whereby hydraulic mining can be carried on without injury to the navigable rivers. While mining operations are being carried on under its authority, the Commission is further required to make surveys of the rivers from time to time to ascertain the effects therein of said operations, and also the effects of erosion, natural and otherwise.

From the date of its organization the attention of the Commission has been fully occupied with matters relating to the resumption of hydraulic mining, and to the individual duties of its members, and no time has been afforded for the consideration of the extensive measures outlined above. During the coming season it is proposed to make such surveys and examinations as may appear necessary to fulfill the requirements of the law.

For a number of years past, under appropriations made by various river and harbor acts, operations have been carried on upon the improvement of the rivers injured by mining débris, with a view of affording a navigable depth of channel adapted to the present demands of commerce. In addition, plans of improvement have been recommended and estimates presented by boards specially convened to consider the subject. Under the provisions of the act approved October 1, 1888, a commission was appointed to investigate the hydraulic min

ing question, and in connection therewith to present plans for the improvement of the rivers. This commission recommended the treatment of the shoal places in the Sacramento and Feather rivers; the construction of a dam at De Guerre Point, on the Yuba, for the purpose of restraining the débris lying in the stream above, and restriction works on the Yuba plains below the foothills.

The improvement of the Sacramento and Feather rivers was again made the special subject of report by a board of engineers, under the provisions of the river and harbor act of September 19, 1890. The recommendations of this board included the improvement of the shoal places in the Sacramento and Feather rivers and restriction works on the Yuba above Marysville.

The maps of all the surveys made in connection with the improvements made and proposed are at the service of this Commission.

The balance on hand from the appropriation of $15,000 made by the act of March 1, last, for the expenses of the Commission is $13,828.44. It is estimated that an additional amount of $20,000 will be required to make the surveys and investigations required by the act.

In regard to the provisions of section 25 of the act of March 1, 1893, in which the recommendations contained in Ex. Doc. (H. R.) No. 267, Fifty-first Congress, second session, and Ex. Doc. (H. R.) No. 98, Fortyseventh Congress, first session, are adopted by Congress, and directed to be made the basis of operations, the Commission desires to say that the restraining barrier described in these documents, situated at or near De Guerre Point on the Yuba River, is considered an advisable construction, to be soon undertaken for restraint of detritus now in the beds of the streams, in furtherance of the project for the improvement of the Sacramento and Feather rivers.

A suitable appropriation for this work will be $300,000.

REMARKS.

While, of course, and of right, any error in fact or law, or judgment, committed by the Commission may be corrected in the courts, the Commission is, by the act of Congress, left very much to its own discretion, and is compelled to rely mainly upon its own judgment. Being unprovided with a legal adviser it is of necessity compelled to its own conclusions in deciding certain legal points in despite of the fact that its members can not lay claim to legal knowledge or experience.

An illustrative case has occurred: A party presented an application in which he stated that he was the owner of the mining property which he desired to mine. The attorney of the Anti-Débris Association controverted the proposition that the applicant was the owner, and offered to present proof that the property had been sold to another party by the United States marshal, and that this party held the deed. The attorney urged that the Commission is required by the act to take notice of this fact, and to refuse a permit for the reason that the law confines permits to proprietors. On the other hand the applicant was in possession of the property, claiming to hold by a deed from the sheriff of Nevada County, who had sold the property to meet unpaid taxes.

The Commission considered these points. It appeared first that the Commission is not empowered, and is not, by its constitution, capable of deciding disputed questions of title that the court of law alone can decide such questions; that if the Commission undertakes to do so, its operations may be clogged and nullified in many cases by appearance of a contestant, for many mining properties are in dispute.

In view of all the conditions, the Commission decided upon a rule of action to the effect that the party in possession, alleging in his verified application that he is the owner, is to be recognized as owner until the courts of law shall have determined otherwise.

Appendix D is a copy of an act of the legislature of California, providing for a State débris commissioner, and defining his duties.

Mr. John F. Kidder, c. E., has been appointed. He has accompanied the Commission in visits to a number of mines, and has attended some sessions of the Commission in San Francisco.

[blocks in formation]

The California Débris Commission, appointed under the act of Congress approved March 1, 1893, publishes for the information of all concerned sections 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the law which governs in the matter of presentation of petition and proceedings thereafter:

SEC. 9. That the individual proprietor or proprietors, or in case of a corporation its manager or agent appointed for that purpose, owning mining ground in the territory in the State of California mentioned in section three hereof, which it is desired to work by the hydraulic process, must file with said Commission a verified petition, setting forth such facts as will comply with law and rules prescribed by said Commission.

SEC. 10. That said petition shall be accompanied by an instrument duly executed and acknowledged, as required by the law of the said State, whereby the owner or owners of such mine or mines surrender to the United States the right and privilege to regulate by law, as provided in this act, or any law that may hereafter be enacted, or by such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by virtue thereof, the manner and method in which the débris resulting from the working of said mine or mines shall be restrained, and what amount shall be produced therefrom; it being understood that the surrender aforesaid shall not be construed as in any way affecting the right of such owner or owners to operate said mine or mines by any other process or method now in use in said State: Provided, That they shall not interfere with the navigability of the aforesaid rivers.

SEC. 11. That the owners of several mining claims situated so as to require a common dumping ground or dam or other restraining works for the debris issuing therefrom in one or more sites may file a joint petition setting forth such facts in addition to the requirements of section 9 hereof; and where the owner of a hydraulic mine or owners of several such mines have and use common dumping sites for impounding débris or as settling reservoirs, which sites are located below the mine of an applicant not entitled to use same, such fact shall also be stated in said petition. Thereupon the same proceeding shall be had as provided for herein.

SEC. 12. A notice specifying briefly the contents of said petition and fixing a time previous to which all proofs are to be submitted shall be published by said commission in some newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in the communities interested in the matter set forth therein. If published in a daily paper, such publication shall continue for at least ten days; if in a weekly paper, in at least three issues of the same. Pending publication thereof said commission, or a committee thereof, shall examine the mine and premises described in such petition. On or before the time so fixed all parties interested, either as petitioners or contestants,

whether miners or agriculturists, may file affidavits, plans, and maps in support of their respective claims. Further hearings, upon notice to all parties of record, may be granted by the commission when necessary.

The commission also publishes the following suggestions, instructions, and information for preseut guidance of those concerned. These instructions are subject to such modification as experience may suggest.

The petition must, in addition to fulfillment of the requirements of the law, contain, or be accompanied by, a full description covering the following points and by such maps as may be required for illustration of the question, namely:

The name, location, and extent of the mining ground; the route of travel thereto; the river which the drainage of the mine reaches and the names of the tributaries which it follows; the height of the bank to be mined; the character of the gravel; the source of the water supply; the length, fall, and dimensions of the ditch; the length of the mining season; the number of inches of water proposed to be used and under what pressure; the daily duration of mining proposed, whether for twenty-four or fewer hours; the fall of the sluice in 12 feet; dimensions of sluice and the amount of gravel to be handled in an hour; the character of restraining barriers existing or proposed; a description of the site for impounding detritus; its area and capacity; position and character proposed for the barrier.

Brevity and clearness are to be studied in these descriptions.

The above-stated information may be sufficient to enable the Commission, in some cases, to dispense with maps, but in all cases of importance maps of the mining ground and of the reservoir sites will probably be necessary, and in all cases will probably expedite the action of the Commission. The Commission prefers, for expedition, but does not at present insist, that each case should be presented by a mining or civil engineer capable of giving necessary information.

It will expedite matters if all the miners in one particular locality will prepare and present their petitions as near as possible at the same time, in order that the mines may all be examined during one visit of the Commission.

In cases of a joint petition contemplated in section 11, there should be a separate statement from each individual mine as to its proposed output, amount of water, etc., the same as provided for a single petition.

All maps, plans, petitions, or writings of any description on file in the office shall be open for examination by any interested party.

On a day following the date fixed in the advertisement, provided in section 12, the Commission or a committee thereof will attend in its office to meet the petitioners and contestants, for the purpose of gaining, by inquiry, such explanation as may be necessary for a full understanding of the case.

The Commission does not invite oral addresses and prefers that all questions submitted for its consideration be presented in writing.

The office of the Commission is for the present established in room 89, Flood building, San Francisco.

All communications should be addressed to Maj. W. H. Heuer, Corps of Engineers, room 89, Flood building.

[graphic]

APPENDIX B.

Table showing applications to mine by the hydraulic process.

[Received by the California Débris Commission.]

No.

1 Kelly Hill

2

3 Omega..

4

and Saw Pit Flat. 5 Brandy City.

6

7

8

9

10 Corbiere & Bean.. Butte.

11 Phoenix Gold Sierra Gravel Mine.

12 Eureka mining claim.

« AnteriorContinuar »