, 1886-07-14

1t is a frequent subject of complaint by
desert entrymen that unexpected and un-
necessary difficulties are interposed in
their way when they come to make final
proof. 1t often happens that a claimant
who has done all in his power in the ut
most good faith to comply with the re-
q%uirements of the law, finds himself face
to face with questions which do not seem
to have any necessary bearing either on
the character ofthe land or its reclama-
ton. A number of desert entrymen in
this land district have recently been noti-
fed by the register that the commissioner
requires supplemental proof upon points
which they had not regarded as material
and concerning which it may be impossi-
BILE to furnish any proof at all, much less
such as might satisfy a strict and rigorous
construction Of a liberal law. One of
these gentleman-probably many others
also-has had his attention called to his
replies to Question g." of the form pre-
scribed by the general land office for tax
ing proof, which reads: How many
acres have been sown or planted in each
year, in what crops, and upon what por-
ton or subdivision of the land, and what
amount of such crops has been actually
produced2" The reply to this question,
though accepted by the local officers was
not satisfactory to the commissioner, who
required further proof showing the pro-
duction of an agricultural crop, how much
the product per acre, upon what part
grown, and all this year by year. The
law itself provides hat at any time within
three years after filing his declaration,
upon making satisfactory proof to the
register and receiver of the reclamation of
the tract by irrigation, the entryman may
pay for and receive title to the land en-
braced in his entry. Another section sub
jects the determination of what may be
considered desert land to the deci-
sion of the commissioner of the gen
eral land Office, but the proof
necessary to constitute conclusive evil
dence of reclamation is not hampered by
such restriction. AS the matter stands,
the officers here have no discretion on the
subject and must under instructions re-
iect all proof not coming within the some
what arbitrary rules prescribed by their
superior, rules framed without regard to
existing conditions of climate or to the
peculiar circumstances of the country with
regard to water supply or 10 retaining
unsown land to crop hay and Its gradual
fertilization by water to increase the yield.
All parties having entered upon desert
lands would do well to bear in mind the
necessity OF complying with what they
in common with all men %conversant with
the territory-must regard as unreasonable
exactions, or they may as well spare them
selves the trouble and inconvenience of
proffering proof which cannot be accepted,
unless indeed they are prepared to con
test the question by an appeal to the Sec
rotary of the interior. The actual pro-
ductlon' Of crops-as distinct from hav-
ing a crop growing at date of proof-and
the title to water right are wRsxsss1al
technical difficulties in the way Of making
proof, and the latter is of minor import
ance on account of the facility with
which errors or omissions may be rem
edied. The desert act should receive a
fair and liberal construction, favorable to
the claimant in all cases where the law
has substantially been complied with and
the land reclaimed. Any other course of
procedure entails loss on bona fde entry
men who may have actually reclaimed
land from a desert state only to find their
labor and expense of no avail on account
of some technical objection without bear
ing on the fact of reclamation or the real
merits of the case.