The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1882-08-30
THE DESERT LAND ACT.
A New Ruling by the Secretary of the In
terior--It is Not Sufficient to Conduct
Water Upon the I,and-Crops
Must be Produced.

Water Upon the Land-Crops
Must be Produced.
An important decision was recently
promulgated by Secretary Teller in rela
ton to claims under the desert land act
The case under consideration was that OF
Wallace vs.. Boyce, involving a desert
land entry in the Helena district Boyce
made final proof under the desert land
act to a certain tract of land, and Wal
lace contested his claim alleging (1> that
the defendant had not reclaimed and
cultivated said land rs required by the
desert land act; ~ that he was not owner
of enough water to irrigatc his land (3)
that he was not the owner Of ditch or
bitches from the source of supply to the
land; (4l that the bitches through which
the water was conveyed were not of
sufficient capacity to properly irrigate
the tract. The case was decided in favor
Of Boyce both by the local land office
and the commissioner Of the general
land office, but their rulings are now
terror, who maintains that the conduct
ing Of water upon the lands is not
sufficient; the claimant must produce
crops in order to receive q patent for the
land. This is Il new departure in the
rulings in reference to desert land entries
and evidently bodies forth the intent of
the statute
The following extract from the secre-
tary's decision gives the gist of the new
doctrine: "The law allows entry for the
purpose of reclaiming by irrigation lands
that without such reclamation will not
produce any crop The final proof must
show that it has been so reclaimed "by
conducting water upon the same,n as re-
quired. The forms of proof are drawn
with direct reference to the proof of such
facts as will show compliance by show
ing results. They are clearly in further
ance of the law, and authorized by the
power to make all proper regulations to
enforce in the land administration what
ever is not specifically prescribed by
statute
The primal question to determine is
the Specification of the word areclaim. !"
as the same is used in the statute. 1T is
presumable that congress used this word
i'll its ordinary acceptation, which, ac
cording to Webster, is ''to reduce by dis
| cipline, labor, cultivation or the like, to
! a desired state; to rescue from being
wild, desert, waste, submerged, or the
! like: as to reclaim wild land, oveiflowed
land etc. Hence, am of the opinion
that the intendment Of the statute is to
provide for the reclamation of such lands
from their desert condition to an agri-
cultural state Congress specified water
as a means TO that end, but the mere con-
veying Of water upon the land is not a
fulfillment of the law, unless in sufficient
quantity to prepare such land for cult
vation. 1t would be imputing vain
intent to the statute to intepret the same
as requiring mere occasional seepage of
water upon such land, which, in itself
would not materially change the original
status Of the same so far as agricultural
| purposes are concerned.
Inasmuch as it has been proved tony
satisfaction that Boyce has failed to com
ply in good faith with what conceive
to be requirements of the statue, his
entry should be cancelled y