Fergus County argus., 1901-10-23

required by law, which means the ex-
penditure of vast amount of money,
has not been done. Mr.. Gibson, in in
sisting that the desert land act should
be repealed in order to secure national
aid in the way Of irrigation, overlooks
the fact that there are millions of acres
of vacant land that cannot be reached
by any scheme Of national irrigation
What would he do with such lands?
Again Mr.. Gibson says:
1--WE can readily understand why cap
italists in Chicago, Boston and New
York, men in nowise identified with
the upbuilding of the western states.
who have invested money in cattle,
sheep. water fronts and favored places
commanding wide ranges, should look
with disfavor upon all measures that
tend to settlement and growth, but it
is not easy TO understand how men liv-
ing in the western states and taking
pride in their achievements should be
indifferent to these subjects"
How many of such non-residents are
there interested in Fergus county? Why
have not actual settlers discovered
these favored places?" These lands
have been open for settlement for the
past twenty or thirty years; why have
they been left idle, bringing in no
money to the nation or to the state,
while home-seel;ers fall over each other
in their haste To acquire lands in Okla
homa? IL these lands are so well
adapted To agriculture, then Montana
has been slow and derelict in not call
ing attention TO them. But the fact is
there has been no demand for them
for agricultural purposes. There are
plenty of men all over this state who
will not doubt Mr.. Gibson's motives or
devotion TO the welfare of Montana,
yet cannot endorse his ideas as regards
the repeating of the land laws. II is
simply absurd that now, after the des-
ert land law has been in operation
twenty-four years, it should be re-
pealed, when the chances for fraud are
constantly growing less. Mr.. Gibson
says:
"ln ninety cases out of hundred
the provisions of the desert land act
have not been complied with in secur.
ing title. In fact. the provisions of the
law have been fragrantly violated and
title has been secured by the rankest
perjury
Even IL this statement were true,
which it is not, il shows the worthless.
ness of the land for the pcnniless set.
tier and agricuturalist, for il the small
stockmen who have accumulated some.
thing cannot fulfill the laws require.
ment the former cannot, and IL water
is not available for private enterprise,
nine times out of ten it could not be
secured by the government, however
great the undertaking. And IL within
the power of the government, the
chances are no man now living would
see the work inaugurated, except in an
experimental way in most favorable
and adaptable locations.
Mr.. Whelpley goes into history OF
the desert land act and its workings,
but adds nothing new to Mr.. Gibson
statements. lie even reproduces some
of the familiar statements that have
been read in the Great Falls Tribune.
Mr.. Whelpley says:
"Since 1877 there have been 36,9jl
original desert filings under this law in
the arid states, covering 2,liO,5l7 acres
of public land. OF all these filings
made but lO,9l2 have been proved up
on and title conveyed by the govern
ment, these final proofs covering 2,67i,-
GD5 acres"
But he fails TO state that these filings
were made in over a dozen different
states and territories, embracing near.
ly billion acres of land, n mere baga.
telle compared to the balance of the
public domain. Mr.. Whelplcy says:
ITO honestly carry out the require
ments imposed 10y the law a man must
have an unquestioned water right OF
sufficient volume, and as experience
has proved. make an expenditure Of at
least $40 an acre to put this water upon
the land in sufficient quantities to raise
a crop of some kind which would not
otherwise have grown upon his claim
1t is a notorious fact that thousands OF
desert claims are filed where there is nc
possibility of securing the necessary
water"
Like Mr.. Gibson, the writer does no
help out the cause of the agricultural
lists by finding fault with those whc
have taken up desert land, or becaus'
the require ment of the law has no
: been filed 70 the letter. According tc
Mr.. Whelpley's statement 320 acres o.
land should cost a man $4,000, as h
pays originally 25 cents an acre and s
more when title passes from the gov
= ernment. How many immigrants o
; settlers without means could afford +
: pay this price for desert land? II mus
be desert land and unfit for agriculture
| for Mr.. Whelpley says: ''lt is notori
GUS fact that thousands of desert Ian
claims are filed where there is no poss
= bility of securing the necessary water.
: II this is true, isn't the government
5 fortunate in getting even one-half c
: the above amount for such land? Woul
= Mr.. Gibson and Mr.. Whelpley conten
j that it would be better for such land