The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-10-10
An Explanation of What
Reclamation Is.
THE IRRIGATION NECESSARY
Rigbt to the Water Used, Quantity
Manner Of Distrib ution. and Per
manency in the Supply.


furnished the following information or
the 1st alt:
The Deseret Land Act ll9 Stat, 377)
provides that any qualified person
upon the payment of % cents per acre
may file declaration, under oath. tina
he intends to reclaim a tract of deseret
land, not exceeding one section, by con
Quoting the water upon the same within
the period of three years thereafter. y
And that "st any time within the
period of three years after filling said
declaration, upon making satisfactory
proof before the Register and Receiver
Of the reclamation of said tract of land
IN the manner aforesaid, and upon the
psyment to the Receiver Of the addi-
tional sum of 81 per acre, for a tract
and not exceeding $40 acres, to any one
person, 3 pateLt TO the same shall be
issued to him.
This act has been the subject OF con-
struction by the Department more than
once and the several conclusions
~
within few DAYS after the passag- OF
the act. TO wit, March L.. 1877, your
Office issued a circular of Instructions
Tor Guidance in carving its provisions
5nto effect. (2C. L. L 1880.
Therein it was said; AT any time
within three years after the GATE OF
fling The declaration and the Issue of
certifosre, the proper party may make
satisfactory proof OF having conducted
yEster upon the land applied for."
These in,trucuons continued in force
Dntll they were supplemented by those
of September 3, 1889 Go, 1892. Therein
il vas held, First, that the VINO tract
must be, in fact, irrigated in manner
suitable for cultivation. and indIcauy t
OF the good faith u the claimant. And
second, That an agricultural crop of
cereals, vegetables or hay, must be
raised within the statutory period Of
three years.
The same question was discussed
incidentally in the case Wallace vs..
Boyce, Il l.. D., 81; 3 L. O., 50 i J29, }
although that case turned upon differ
.ent question, VIZ: That the claimant had
not conveyed water upon the land 10
any extent whatever; and the -enly
thing therein decided was that the
intendment of the statute was to provide
for the reclamation of deSeret lands to
au Agricultural state, that Congress had
specific! water as a means to that END
and that there should be sufficient " GteT
TO prepare the land for cultivation.
This case was commented upon ana
explained by sIny immediate predecessor
il his Instructions before mentioned Is
l, d. $50; II L. O., 346, which WsS the
last time. to Gar as l am aware, that this
question has been before the depart
ment until the present. This was on
the 9Th OF February, 1885: And the
ruling then a opted was that The
proof is satisfactory when 1t shows the
claimant 70 De the owner of a sufficient
quantity Of water to irTigate the land
sufficiently for agricultural purposes,
and that he has conveyed such water on
the lands Sc that II c-n be used IN lrrl-
eating the crop "
Now, by the terms Of the act, the land
IS TO be reclaimed, by conducting wafer
upou the same" The first question TO
be determined is, the significance of the
word reclaim" as it Is used In the aC' /.
In the Interpretation of statutes the
the rule is that: Words are generallv
used in their usual and most know n
signi6cation." Il Blackstone, 50
Hence, applying the general meaning TO
the word reclaim, as given by Web
ster, and the meaning OF the statute Is:
That the desert lands shall be reduced
to an agricultural state by conducting
water upon the same. Ii Goes not
follow, however, that an agricultural
crop must be raised in order 20 show
that such a condition has bees arrived
at In other words, it IL not necessary
70 show the resulS of reclamation in
order to prove the fact of reolspastion.
And under the statute the fact of
reclamation is ali that need be proven.
The reason is this: 1t is g WeH-AnOWn
TACT that the soil of the deseret lands
that are affected by this act under Goa
SlderatiOn, has all the elements 20 make
3 productiveexcept water. II It has,
then the fact that it has been supplied
with a sufficient permanent supply OF
wster is all that can be required under
the statute. If it has not, then Il can
not be reclaimed "by conducting aTGtcr
upon the same and the object OF, the
statute is defeated. As was said by Nh:
Secretary Teller 6 L. D., 3S6, IL L. o..
30; The raising Of crop may. be
evidence of reclamation, but 1t is not
The only evidence that ought TO be
received, and ought not at any tiEne to
dispense with the;actuRi proof as to the
Character of the ditch, quantity OF
water, ETC., owned by the claimant.
But Viii go3one step farther than my
Predecessor, and hold that the whole
tract for which proof is offered unless
Il be possibly some high points or un-
even surfaces which are practically
nct susceptible of irEigation) must be
actually j.Tigated IN a manner indicative
OF the good faith of the claimant In
this connection, the right TO the waite.
used, the quantity Of It, the manner OF
It's distribution, and the Permanency OF
TIE supply, are all TO be taken into con-
ElderatiOn.
This view OF the subject is confirmed,
think, by an examination OF tbs
debates N Congress when the act was
passed. There was little CT no discus
sion Of the original bill in the House,
where il originated; but IN the benatelt
vas discussed at considerable length.
IN the report OF the Senate Committee
ca Public Lands accompanying tae bill,
l and the following gaDguage: ''Ihe
OIL provides for the sale Of g section OF
land 70 any person who will first tTTi-
gate the same, st the usual Pr ce OF 81 70
per acre" And again But the com
thttee believe that when these suds are
irrigated they viii be of sufficient value
q Ia -. . Hear