Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1883-09-07
DESERT LANDS,
TIE MEANING OF THE TERN Ar.
THORITATIvELY DEFINED

1t Means Lands that, One Year with
Another, Without Irrigation, will
Make Fair Return for the Seed and
Toll Expended In Endea vorine to Se.
cure Crop.
AS many entries have already been
made in the HALEY Land District
under the Desert Land Act, the follow.
ing decision will be read with inter.
est. 1t is from Cops Land Owner,
and as follows:
BABcocK vs.. WATSON EFT AL
Dehnition-Lsnds that one year with another for
series OF years. will net, w4tuout irrigation
make fair return to tine ordinarily skillfui
ana industrious husbnndmnn for the seed and
Roll expended In endeAvoring to secure q CROP
are desert lands within the law.
Crop-This term means such IN agricultural pro-
durtion as would be fair reward for the ex.
pense Of producing it.
Acting Secretary Joslyn to Commissioner McF.r.
land. August 7, 1858.
have examined the case Of Ches-
ter Babcock ct al. VS.. David Watson,
Samuel n. Watson and George
Thompson, involving the validity 9,
the following desert land entries, to
wit: Here follows a description of
the tracts entered.-Ep. =
Susanville, California, on appeal from
your decision Of January IL, 1881,
maintaining the desert character OF
said lands.
These lands are situated in Lassen
county, State aforesaid. The entries
are contested upon the ground that
the lands embraced therein are not
desert in character, and no other ques-
ton is presented by the case.
The testimony submitted is volum-
inous and conflicting, and In some re-
spects difficult to reconcile.
After the taking of testimony had
closed, and at the time of filing coun.
sells brief for contestant, packages of
grass and grain were presented at the
local office, accompanied by afiidavits
alleging that such grass and grain
grew upon the land in controversy.
Such testimony was not considered at
the local Office, but was transmitted
with the record. The opposite party
had no opportunity for cross.examin-
alton; or for putting in rebutting
proofs; and objection being made to
receiving the testimony, it cannot
properly be considered. 1 have, how.
ever, considered it in connection with
the contestants suggestion that
further hearing should be ordered in
the case.
The tracts are situated in section
of country largely composed ofdesert
lands.
The proofs show that the lands in
controversy are mostly sagebrush
lands. The testimony is made up
very largely of the opinions of the
witnesses as to whether the tracts in
controversy will, "without irrigation,
produce some agricultural CROP"
These opinions are based upon an ex-
animation of the soil in respect to its
composition and moisture, and OBJ
servation and experience as to raising
crops upon lands of similar character.
This has led to considerable discus
sion as to the amount of the "agricul-
tural CROP" which within the mean
ing Of the statute the land was capa-
bic of producing "without irrigation"
in order to save it from being classed
as desert land.
Section of the Desert Land act
provides "That all lands, exclusive of
timber and mineral lands, which will
not, without irrigation, prod ice some
agricultural crop, shall be deemed
desert land within the meaning of this
act"
Reference is made by contestants
counsel to my decision Of July 3, 1882.
in the case Of Wood VS.. Myer, in
which it was said that ''if any agricul-
tural crop will grow thereon, although
Of an inferior quality, it is not sub
ject to entry as desert land" And
from this it is argued that sit is not a
question Of quantity or quality, but of
-"PoO''y w plOuuCC az al.
Neither the statute nor the decision |
cited are susceptible Of SO narrow
1t is undoubtedly true, as claimed,
hat large part Of the agricultural
and situated in the States and Terri
tories named in the act would be
greatly improved, and more abundant
crops obtained by means of irrigation;
but without irrigation, such lands are
not therefore desert. 1t is not neces.
sary, however, that the lands without
irrigation should be so sterile and
barren that they will not "produce at
ALL" If the lands, one year with an.
other for series of years, will not
without irrigation make fair return
to the careful, ordinarily skilful aud
Industrious husbandman for the seed
and toll expended in endeavoring to
obtain u crop, tie land may Justly be