Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1884-07-24


which was not desert in character, but
which would produce good agricul-
tural crops without artificial irrigation.
The Register transmitted the same to
this office on the 3Oth of said month,
and hearing was ordered by this
Office June 2, 1888, "for the purpose
of determining the true character of
said land" This is the only question
involved in this case.
The case is now before this Office on
appeal by Mr.. Walker from your de-
cision in favor of the defendant. The
second section of the desert land act
Of March 3, 1877, provides that "all
lands, exclusive of timber lands and
mineral lands, which will not without
irrigation produce some agricultural
crop, shall be deemed desert lands"
1t has been repeatedly held by this
office that the term agricultural crop"
means such crop as will return a fair
compensation for the labor and ex-
pense incurred, and that unless the
land will so produce one year with
another for series of years it will be
deemed desert land.
This ruleis SO plain and simple in
its application that l deem it my duty
to make some reference at least to the
volume of irrelevant testimony sub
mitted upon the trial of this case.
Forty eight witnesses were sworn and
examined, aud their testimony covers
more than 1000 pages of legal cap
paper, and the greater portion of such
} testimony is wholly foreign to the
issue presented for trial. Those wit
, nesses who knew little or nothing in
regard to the land in question were
5 called upon to relate their experience
: as farmers in Iowa, Michigan, and
other States. One of the witnesses
$ for the plaintiff John A. Stapleford).
J., after stating that she never farmed il
0 in this country" proceeds to relate
: his experience as farmer during his
4 "younger days while i'll Michigan anc
), Canada"
n In this connection l desire to cal
Q your atte ntion to rule No. So of thu
e rules of practice in this Office in re
s gard to the equitable apportionmen
n of costs between the parties. 1t i
l. observed that the greatest part of ir
IS relevant testimony in this case wa
l. called out by the plaintiff 5 counsel
rs and under objection made thereto b
d the counsel for the defendant.
h The land in question has neve
" been cultivated to crops, nor is
TO shown that land in that vicinity, an
to of the same general character, can b
m successfully cultivated without irriga
81 ton. 1t is claimed that portion {
T. the land in question is of a swamp
- character, and that IN such porto
e. can in nowlse be considered as desel
oe land.
lie The counsel for the plaintiff upo
if the trial, calls attention in his brief
the testimony Of Vim. G. Quigle
one of the plaintiff s witnesses wi
states that about 10 acres Of the Lar
Of in question is "too wet to produce
ar crop" This same witne IS, in spea1
no ing of the land covered by the ent
~ in question, testiies that "by some
- is called desert land, and by some
m is not" When asked to express
opinion in regard to the matter,
replies, that ''outside of few part
ular spots l consider it desert land
While some of the plaintiff s "
all nesses express the opinion that t
rec land might be successfully cultivat
at without irrigation, the witnesses
i'm. the defendant express the opinion II
it cannot. Furthermore, it apes
from the testimony on the part
md the defendant that fruitless attem
Ia have been repeatedly made to ra
~ agricultural crops without irrigat
tut upon land near that in question, q
and OF the same general character.
WIS Your decision, in favor of the
Rem PENDANT, is affirmed. Advise the p
BILE. ties of this decision and of the ri
erer of appeal therefrom:
9TH N. G. MCFARLAND,
It. Commissioner
gu