The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1893-10-27
AN EXPLANATION.
EDITOR GRAPHIC:

18th, headed "a new corn law" il
which / find that the Arkansas VALLEY
Land = Irrigation Co., is made part,
There is u little bit of truth in thu
information furnished you, but ths
principal part Of it is some little dis
tance from tile real facts in the case
presume that the entire article il
.aimed at loan companies and at a can
didsts in your county for a county
office, ami that it is principally poll
tics, and while have not seen oul
agsut, who il the Candidate for county
office, aud therefore, write this un
known t. him, feel that there shoult
he AN. explanation Of this Case made,
aud leaving politics entirely out OF thu
matter, will simply give u Statement,
Ut the facts in the case.
First, to start of with. the Arkansas
Valley Land & Irrigation Co., is not u
loan company; never was u loan com.
pany aud never had any authority t.
negotiate u loan. 1t is All improve.
ment company aud has spent more
money improving land iu your county
than all other compauies put together.
in the last four years.
SecOnd, We did make n breaking COLI
tract with Mr.. Gault, On the D0wlinx
farm, and Mir. GauIt broke eighty two
acres aud We paid for the breaking.
Mr.. Gault, III accordance with part
Vt the conditions Of said contract,
planted tie same 10 sod corn.
But another condition OF his con.
tract was that lie Was to cut up tue
sod corn aud get it out Of The way III
tlme to seed the land to heat i'll the
tall Of 1893. Another condition Was
that he MAS to thoroughly sOd-cut said
land and seed it to wheat iu the fall
Ut 1898.
When the proper time came for cut
ting up and removing the corn crop,
SO as to get the full benefit OF said
crop as fodder, there being but little
curn, made the discovery that Mr..
Gault bad left tue country and the
circumstances under which he left, as
told by the parties who gave me the
information, were such as to Cause me
to believe that he had left for good,
aud was not coming back and did not
intend to comply with his contract. 1
waited "a reasonable length of time but
heard nothing from Nj. Gault. nor
from anybody representing Mi. Gault.
l then instructed my agent to hire
hands and have this corn cut up So as
to get it out Of the way SO that we
might have the land sod-cut aud seed
ed. After the contract had been made
to have this corn cut. and the princi-
pal part Of the crop had been cut,
was informed that Mr.. Gault had re-
turned aud that lie claimed that lie
had sold his share of the crop to u Mir.
McCrea, at Kinsley. AS we had made
the contract to have the corn cut up,
We notified Mi. Gault that if lie would
pay for the cutting lie could take the
thres-fOurtlls, providing he would
comply with the balance of his coll
tract. Ipresume that this notice was
gwen to Mr., McCrea, who claims that
he had bought Mir. Gault's share, and
there has been no chage as yet in this
proposition. The corn is all cut up
and we are waiting patiently for Mr..
Gault or Mr.. McCrea to pay for the
cutting and remove their corn from the
ground, but it seems they want the
crop for nothing and want US to cut il
up, and possibly want us to haul 1t to
them. The crop should have beeu
cut up sometime ago, bat We waited
patiently for MIR. Gault, or his repre-.
sentative to show up aud take some
action III the matter.
Very Respectfully,
GEO. w. WATSON.
Larned, Kas., Oct. 2Srd.
Above We publish u letter to us
from Mr. Geo. w. Watson of Larned,
in explanation of the action of the
Arkansas Land and Irrigation Com
pany in cutting up the corn crop Of
MIR. Gault, which matter was referred
to in the GRAPHIC two weeks ago. Mr.
| Watson substantially admits the trutl
Of every statement Of fact contained
in our article, but attempts to shield