Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-11-24

Another Bay Devoted 10 Nr. Ne.
Cornick's Cress.ExaninAtios.

Thismorning the hearing Of q
beach land contest case was furth,
i continued. ff
The cross examination Of NJ
, Mccormick, c. E., was in progres
when the NEWS went to press O
Saturday afternoon. In the courz
Of his answers he gave the opinio
that the solid matter contained 4
the water Of the Pacific Ocean wa
somewhere from to 5 per cent
while that ofthc Great Salt LAX
was about 20 per cent. At tn
precent time part Of the land lynn
between the sand ridge upon tn
lands in dispute and the wafer lin
OF the Great Salt Lake could be re
claimed, but he could not IA,
where the dividing line between
the reciaimsple and irreclaimab;,
lands would be drawn. Under th,
present conditions Of artificial salin
ity which obtain upon the edges o
the salt ponds, part Of this grount
on the east OK the sand ridge ant
befTeen the ridge and the sal
ponds could not be made available
for agriculture He would not un
dertake to draw q dividing line be
tween that which could and thsl
which could not be reclaimed; bul
1t would follow to a greater or les
extent the contour of the salt ponds.
He believed the salts In these
ponds to have been deposited
by waters OF the Great Salt Lake
cut off by the main dam from the
main lake when the water of the
lake was at q higher stage. He
could NOT, Of courts, say positively
/ how Icing II would take to reclaim
these salt lands with water, but it
seemed to him that 1t should be done
within two seasons. He based this
opinion upon having seen ground
highly charged with a saline matter
and alkslies ieached out and made
available for growing luxu-
rant grasses within about that
time. This particular land was
upon the ranch of the Hon. A. c.
Cleveland, at White Pine Co, Ne.
vada, in Spring Valley. 1t was n
portion OF the old lake which ex-
listed in that valley. He could not
say how long it was since this re-
claimed land Vas oveIfiowed by a
lake: but probably more than a GEN.
fury. II hal scattering growth
upon it, similar TO that upon the
grounds In dispute. Sasebrush
would not grow upon such alkaline
land. He never saw a deposit
of salt such az is found upon the
lands In dispute upon Mr.. Cleve-
lands reclaimed land. He did not
know ofany lands on the borders of
the Great Salt Lake or elsewhere
upon which the waters of the lake
had been permitted TO evaporate
having been reclaimed. He had
made no estimate Of the quantity of
water that would be required to re-
claim the lands in dispute, L., 10
take from them sufficient amount
OF the salts and aikalies to per-
nit of their cultivation. This
process was one that was not
necessarily confined to the irriga-
ton season of the year, and aside
from getting coniuit to these lands
to convey the water to them. he
would judge that q sufficient guam
tity could be obtained from the
waters of the jordan during eight
months OF the year to speedily effect
this object 1t was perfectly clear
that the proposition TO leach these
lands now covered with salt could
not lie conducted ii the waters Of
the lake were over them, or II the
waters Of the lake were at such a
height upon the dam or the beach as
TO prevent the water used in leach
ing from flowing OF. Under exist
ing conditions he would not attempt
10 reclaim the island upon the iand
in dispute above the lake level
by artificial irrigation. IL the
central so-called fresh water
pond running approximately east
along the section line, between Sec
tons is and IS, salt had been gath
cred at some time past and piled
upon both hanks. The first time lie
visited the outer poud, between the
big dam ami the lake, was October
2lst, 1899, and there was then no
deposit on the grouni under the
water. A few days later the water
attained such a density from evapor-
alton as to cause q salt pre.ipitate.
Witness was next questioned as
to the construction Of the respective
dams on the lands ia dispute, and
into this matter counsel for the pro-
testants entered at some length.
Witness gave description OF the
various growths upon the lands in
dispute, and a number Of photographs
were put in.
Major Bird asked the witness
whether il was Rot a fact that n Mr..
James kanelly was paying, if not
all, at any rate a portion Of the ex-
penses Of this contest?
Mr. Stephens objected to tire ques-
ton rs being immaterial anc de-
sired the ruling of the Registrar and
Receiver as to the competency Of
this evidence.
The officers ruled thereupon
that the question would be allowed
subject TO the objection.
Witness-Of the money which I
have received, Mr.. Kanelly has
paid me about one-third and Mr..
Alfred Thompson two-ihirds. This
is approximately within few dol
lars.
The redirect examination Of Mr..
Mccormick wss then taken up by
Attorney Stephens, who called for
the witness further opinion as TO the
forage character of the grasses and
other vegetation on the laud in
question.
Major Bird objected, for the
reason that the witness, on cross
examination, was asked 70 state his
full knowledge of the forage charac-
ter OF the growth upon these lands,
and without any hindrance what
ever he gave all the information he
possessed. He was now re-directed
upon that subject after a continu-
snce of over an hour and a half;
therefore such a reference 10 his
previous testimony was wholly i'm
proper under the circumsta noes.
While the testimony now sought
could not, under the rule, be kept
out, Major Bird said he would call
the particular attention Of the Re-
gistrar and Receiver to the point.
Witness said he had nothing
farther to add as TO the forage char
acter Of the growth upon these lands,
except that he had in his possession
q specimen Of ''sand grass" (pro-
duced) pulled from the ground on
November 5th in his presence.
Inquiry proceeding.]
From the Mission Field.
Elder Arthur Maxwell, of Peoa.
Summit Co., returned on Saturday