Idaho semi-weekly world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1875-1908, 1893-03-17
TIC IRRIGATION BILLS.
r. !. Suttsn Reviews Measures De-
fsre the Legislature.
BOISE CRY, March 10, 1893.

BOISE CITY, March 13, 1898.
ED. WoRLD:-In your issue Of
the 10th inst, referring to my criti-
cism of the Republican majority for
having failed TO pass an irrigation bill
you say: "There were too many
conflicting views and too many propo-
sitions presented for agreement, and
besides those most interested, and
those who should have shown the
most interest (meaning the farmers)
have exhibited the greatest indiffer-
-nce in regard to this matter. We
mean the farmers who are dependent
upon irrigation companies for water.
They have for over two years been
importuned to organize for action, by
newspapers and leading citizens Of
State, who have advocated : limita.
tion OF the powers of corporations
solely for the welfare of the State" "
etc., etc. "In order to secure Just
irrigation bill," you proceed, "the
farmers must organize, discuss the
question, come to some agreement
and formulate their conclusions for
the guidance of the Legislators"
There are serious errors in the
foregoing quotation which I hope you
will kindly permit me to point out to
the readers of the WORLD; and l
will try to do SO without falsely ac-
cusirg or praising any political par
~, for l hold that all of US should be
more concerned about arriving ct the
truth than about the welfare of any
political party.
In the first place it is an error to
suppose that there we're many coL-
Aicting views or propositions to be
reconciled by the Legislature. There
were but two irrigation bills intro
duced. One of these was by Mr.
Mills (R-p.) of the lower House
This bill presented the corporations
interests, utterly ignoring the farmers
Had it become a law the ditch cor
porations would have secured all oi
the water in the State, and had un,
bridled control of it all. 1t was me1
in the committee rooms by the farm
ers and their agents and such amend
ments insisted on as would make i
barely acceptable to the farmers
With a portion of those amendments
incorporated in it the bill was sub
mitted to the lower House and de
feated, Mr.. Mills himself voting
against it, and Mr. Mills constituted
the Republican majority of the House
He was the bellweather that they al
followed.
The other irrigation bill was intro
duced by Mr.. H. F. johnson, of th'
Senate, and passed that body. l
was drawn up by a farmer, after
careful study of the Wright law, o
California, and two months or NOR
.zz..l...,1, .r:.h e.,.u,xe .o.l otbo-
on the subject. 1t will be seen b.
! this that the farmers did consult to
gether, did cause bill to be draw
up bv one of their number and di
secure its introduction. This bil
was satisfactory to more than two
thirds of the farmers of this part G
the State, and was passed by tn
Senate and defeated by the House
because it promised protection to tn
farmers. But that was not the wors
, feature of it; when the farmers an
their representatives, foreseeing tn
r defeat of Johnson's bill in the Hous,
: appeared before the committee hs,
ing the Mills bill under considerable
, and amended it so as to protect th
farmer just little, Mr.. Mills avenge
himself by voting against the whol
bill.
To conclude: 1t is a mistake
suppose the farmers must organi7
and formulate bill that will prote,
their interests. 1t is their right
: Go so, and they did do it in this ii
l., stance, but there IS no obligation res
o ing on them in the matter. The
$ help to elect Legislators to mai
d laws for the State, and not for Il
|. corporations. The farming intere
is being paramount to all others, bo
l. as to numbers engaged and as to 7
y y suits produced, those Legislato
. should have sense and homes
70 enough to protect primarily the par
e mount interest, and to prefer-wh'
their interests clash-the farmers
is the corporations, since real proper
" of a State is found only when {
Ill <,eh h