Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-11-06

Witness answered that undoubt.
eddy it could, providing the bed and
sides Of such ponds were sufficiently
retentive to hold the water.
In redirect examination the Wit
ness was asked, supposing all these
salt lands were enclosed ip a fence,
now many head OF stock could be
kept within that enclosure all the
year round.
Mr.. Thompson objected 10 the
question as imma.erial and irrele-
want.
Wituess-I think the number
would be extremely limitei and run
the risk OF utterly perishing. There
were not, lac further stated, 10 his
knowledge, any minerals upon these |
lands other than saline. There was
no coal nor indications Of it.
This concluded the evidence Of
Mr.. Smith.
Professor Marcus f. Jones was
then recalled on the part OF the
prOtestants and questioned upon
certain points in the diagrams before
the court. Asked as TO what
caused the rise and fall OF
the Great Sals Lake, witness
replied that &c was due TO tie differ
ence in rainfall and temperature,
and upon these depended, chiefly; I
the humidity and evaporation. Il
Asked 10 explain the periodical
rise and fall of the lake, Prof. Jones |
answered that there was genera
continuous rise OF the lake from 1871
to 1866, inclusive, and from 1865 up
to the present time. That he called
"zrRnd oscillation" and, speaking 4
in very general terms, he had been
accustomed TO call 1t the ''thirty |
year oscillation" Taking any part |
ofthis so-calie i"thirty years curve,"
I, would be seen that there was an
oscillation within such curve, the
crest of the first oscillation being in
1857, aud the second in 1866. That
he was accustomed 10 call the SHINE
year escillation;" but though these
oscillations were perfectly evident,
they were not uniform either in
length or extent. Hence he had
taken a general average from all the
known oscillations shown on the
maps.
To other questions witness said |
that the rainfall Of 1883 was l1I5 |
inches, or whereabouts, while that |
Of 1855 was a trifle less than ] J, and
Of 1887 about rs.
tnterrogated as 10 hoJs long he !
thought the land in dispute or all Of
the land embraced In the jeremy *
Co. salt pond was likely 10 remain |
exposed or to be overlooked by the |
waters Of the Great Salt Lake, Prof.
Jones said that, judging from the
lakes past history for many years, |
it was not likely that these lands |
would be submerged or exposed for
for any great period Of time. In the |
past they had been covered to the |
depth Of a number Of feet by the |
waters Of the lake, and had been |
exposed by the lakes surface being |
slightly less than an equal number |
Of feet below the inlet Of the ponds. |
The storm line was produced by the
action of waves in throwing up
upon the shore floating weeds and
bushes, sticks, and other floating 4
material, which would necessarily |
be piled up and left there by tue |
highest water occurring at that
time, and could not possibly remain |
there had the water been even |
higher than that at any succeeding
period.
Major Bird - Could there lie 1
that difference, or even 4
greater difference, in the levels II |
the conditions Of the lake were I
changed-say that when your |
measurement was taken the lake |
was smooth and level and when Mr.. |
Smiths level was taken there was a
wave action or wind governing the |
surface Of the lake or changing it.
Witness replied there could, and |
more than that difference. A high !
northwest wind would drive the |
wafer OF the lake into the ponds |
before referred 10, TO the abnormal
height Of n foot or one and a half .
feet, and the wave action within The /,
ponds might make a possible differ /
ence Of a foot and a half or more. |
The character Of the soil underlying
the salt ponds. which included all
but q very small portion Of the land
in question-immediately under
living the salt on the bottom Of the |
ponds-was clay. nearly saturated !
with salt. The clay varied in /
thickness; and az varying depths |
beneath the clay lay a stratum OF
clay mixed with sand, then
stratum Of sand, then a stratum Of
clay, and so on in varying thickness |
to known depth Of $50 feet.
Major Bird-NOw, from these ex-
sminations, how much, II any, Of |
the land in dispute Is what might 1
be termed arabic?
Mr.. Thompson raised an objection |
to this question, as ii had not been |
shown that the witness was c0mpe-
tent 10 testify as 10 the agricultural |
character Of this land, or its area.
Witness said mis- understanding |
of arabic land was that IL was |
naturally divided into two classes,
viz: ordinary lands such as would |
produce crops Immediately upon |
being plOwed, and cultivated with |
out irrigation, while the second |
subdivision Of arabic land Was
that which would produce crops |
Immediately upon being plowed |
ami cultivated, II 1t had a sufficient
supply Of moisture brought upon 1t
by irrigation or otherwise. This lat |
ter was commonly classed as desert |
land. Whatever part, therefore, of
this land could possibly produce
crops under this definition would lie
classed as desert land. That portion
which could possibly be so classed in
this case was confined 10 a very |
small area, say two and a half acres,
lying in the vicinity and TO the
southwest OF the shanty now stand
ing on this land. So far as he could
remember, this particular land was
made up entirely Of sands and was
Of such an uneven surface that IL /
would be necessary 10 rake il over /
before water could be turned upon /
it, also 10 construct costly fumes TO
conduct 1.-THE water from the main
land to the south of it. 1t would 1
likewise require very great guam
tity Of water to irrigate, as the va
ter would sink Immediately into the
sand ami How away Underground.
THE inquiry was proceeding at
the time the NEWS went 10 press,
Prof. Marcus Jones being still under
examination.l
WEATHER AND SCIENCE
NnnTS