, 1900-07-12
THE TIE CONTRACTORS VS.. THE
RANCHMAN.
Some Pertinent Remarks on This En-
crossing Subject by I. M. CONFESS
The Law Should be Repealed.
EDITOR SUN:

EDITOR Sun:
A year ago when the people of
this valley were agitating for the
creating of a Forest Reserve to
protect the timber and water
rights on which they are so larg-
ly dependent we told that the
the whole subject had been delay
ed and laid aside at the request
of Senator Teller of Colo. until
the next session of Congress, when
action would surely be taken.
That session has passed without a
single step being taken in that
direction and it is with the ut
most regret that I have to say,
that, to all appearances, there is
not the least prospect that any
such action will be urged by those
who represent US at Washington.
This year of non-action has seen
more timber land taken up by
railroad and tie contractors than
ever before, probably more than
has been taken up in all the years
since Wyoming was made a state.
And to emphasize the situation 1
am informed that Gee & Coz have
bought timber land on Douglas
creek and that the men who have
been running the tie camp on
Medicine Bow river are now start
ing a new camp on Encampment.
Aside from the damage to the
country by the indiscriminate
destruction of its timber, this will
bring home to still more ranch
men the fragrant injustice of the
present laws governing the rights
of tie drivers and ditch and land
owners. One would think that
the rights of ranchmen and irri-
gators, citizens and permanent
residents of the state who are en-
gagged in building up and impros-
ing the country were entitled to
protection. But as against a for
eign contractor or corporation our
present laws give them none.
Mining claims are subject to rights
of way for various purposes, but
it is specifically provided that un-
less the owner consents said right
of way cannot be taken save in
condemnation-or by due process
of law and payment of damages.
YET when it comes to driving
ties the shoe is on the other foot,
and not only are all creeks and
rivers declared public highways
for such purposes, but any irrigat-
ing dam which may obstruct the
free passage of ties or logs is de-
clared a public nuisance, even
though it be built on a ranchman's
own land, and he is liable to a
fine of five dollars a day for keep
ing it there, however necessary it
may be to him to obtain water for
irrigating, besides damages to the
tie contractor. Furthermore the
ranchman must erect and main
tain a sufficient headgate to pre-
vent such ties or logs from enter
ing his ditch, or be liable to the
contractor for damages to be re-
covered i'll court.
Is there a single provision of
the law for the protection of the
irrigator? Not one! The tie
drive may damage his dam, it may
tear it out, and he has no protec-
ton from the law. He may, as
was done to me this month, pile
up ties by hand SO as to form a
dam and shut off the natural flow
Of water from II slough from which
my ditch starts, and the law gives
me no protection. His ties may
block up a headgate SO as to pre-.
vent water entering at all in low
water. The law gives no protec-
ton. He may, as was done two
years ago, dump 10000 ties in the
river in the fall, let them freeze in
and come down with the ice gorge
in the spring and damage and
tear out dams and bridges, besides
killing thousands of fine trout.
This law was made for the tie
contractor only, and is as viscious
a piece of Legislation as is on oui
books to-day.
III ~ 4