The Courier. (Genoa, Nev.) 1899-1904, 1900-06-15
Carson Letter.

of testimony on the part of the CON-
plainanfa began before Special Exam
iner I. " He4ley al Carson nJune4.
The plaintiffs were represented By y
soserberg, d. W. Virgin and Alfred
chartz. and the defendants By L. s
Miner Of Bridgeport and P. =. Packard
of GardnervilIe and Judge J. II. Allen
of San Francisco, but the latter was
not present. Civil Engineer 4 J.
Chalmers was put on the stand and ex-
amined for three days by Alfred Chartz
and cross-examined two days BY T. 5.
Miner. Charley Mack was next put
on the stand and examined b. d. II.
Virgin and cross-examined By r s.
Miner. and that took up the rest of the
week. The examination Of D. R Jones.
Charles E. Holbrook and 3 few others
will take about two weeks each The
defendants estimate that they VII pro
duce not less than fir witnesses. and
the plaintiffs probably Al equal zzEa-
Der. Testimony Will Be taken L Car
son. Markleeville. Woo1for1S al n
San Francisco. and mar Be taken s.is@-
where. Maps and exhibits vi be ~
trodaced il eriaezce. E13 r-oeszs3T
scientific testimony VII 2lao Re lzEr'a-
dnced. TIE 6rsT caa1 sza11s are ID
pailed al the outlook. zza Eall z1HF
they BE- TIE 6rss i1ssuz-E TAI So
gests Itself i .-way Is Al ralssrs i 4
but proper % explain tfss p1sz-5oz &
the Committee having to zzz1aer n
charge on behalf q the plaintiffs Be-
fore the present suit B2s begun they
offered in writing . permit the firm
ers 10 divide a. the water CT the West
Fork among themselves, ard 70 take i
all, after il got down 70 certain stage,
and TO keep Il all for the period OF
twelve days, and then that they should
turn It all down, and look out for their
own water for stock and domestic pur-
poses for the period of fifteen days,
and the farmers of Douglas county
would divide it among themselves &C
cording to their rights for that time.
Conferences were solicited by the rep
resentatiyes of the farmers of Alpine,
which were readily granted by Doug
las, and the Douglas Committee, with
their attorneys went up the valley to
meet them on two different occasions
at two different points agreed upon II
believe on three occasions), and at the
meeting at Sheridan the Alpine people
said they had no right to talk, but they
had the right to listen to what the
Douglas people had to say. Subse-
quently an unsigned typewriter sheet,
and addressed in typewriting, so as
not to reveal the indentity of the
writer, was received by Judge Virgin,
and the letter in substance was an offer
of compromise as follows: The Alpine
farmers will allow the Douglas farmers
to have the water five days per month,
and during that time the Alpine people
will retain all the water they need for
stock and domestic purposes This
amounted to nothing but an insult
The suit was then speedily brought
and the defendants served with sum-
mons. In conversations between some
of the plaintiffs and some of the defend
ants subsequent to fling the complaint,
defendants said that they could not let
the water 60 because their fumes
would crack Then the plaintiffs Of
fered 10 keep the defendants fumes
full Of water ali the time. and that ex-
posed the crack in their argument;
and then they said their bitches were
not wide enough 70 bring the water
down 10 them quick enough, and they
were told 10 widen their bitches, and
that left nothing but narrow snbter-
fuge. Then they said they had 10 have
water for their stock, and they were
told that some OF the plaintiffs had
been without water from the river for
stock purposes from May p, 1895, until
the fall of the year.
On last Saturday a recess was taken
until September 10. 1890. Why? Both
sides seeing ruin ahead for some OF the
poorer farmers, began 10 talk in a more
moderate tone. / believe Mr. Miner
first spoke of il to Judge Virgin and =.
Soderberg AFTER ne noticed the line OF
examination Of Mr. Chartz, and on
Saturday, the feeling between the
parties seeming better, a consultation
was had between the attorneys, and
Representatives OF the farmers with ref
erence to the ACCESSIBILITY OF recess.
1t was argued that the testimony could
go on week or two longer, and then
harvesting would begin and continue
until the middle of September. when a
recess would have TO be taken TO en-
able the plaintiffs to harvest their
crops, and then it was further argued
that week or two at either end would
make little difference, and if a compro-
mise was had the expense of a week OF
two, amounting to $1,000 or S1,5ol