, 1902-03-20
permissible in others. the claims being
cancelled in the latter.

permissible in others. the claims being
cancelled in the latter.
The rulings with respect to com.
pactness of the land included i'll a
desert claim were shifting and contra
dictory, as clearly appears in the case
of William Thompson Is l.. D.. 1919
and J. II. Christensen GO L.. D.. 202).
Claims which We're in full conformity
with the rules existing when the claims
were initiated were subsequently can
celled because not in conformity with
later and changed rulings.
In many localities in the arid states
there was a abundance of land with
a good soil but scarcity of water. and
in the effort under this statute. to re-
claim and make productive and valu.
able. lands which otherwise were al.
together unproductive II without
value more land was filed upon than
could be reclaimed and irrigated with
the available water supply. The re-
suit was that those who originally
held Or who afterwards obtained the
prior water rights were able to per-
feet their desert claims and others
we're unable to perfect theirs. In some
instances the project for conducting
water to the land from remote places
proved more difficult and expensive
than at first contemplated and had to
hn aha nlnnnI - rtyn, 1nnpltttn. tJ,A
presence of alkali or of too much sane
in the soil prevented successful re-
clamation and cultivation, necessitat,
ing the abandonment of the claim.
In all these cases. however, the clai-
mant was required to make. and did
make, the first overwhelmingly
% cents per acre, but within the prim-
airy limits Of a railroad land grant so
cents per acre; and in those cases
where the claim was subsequently can
celled under the rulings of circum-
stances referred to. the government
still retains the land and also holds
the first payment thereon.
This recitation of the changing and
conflicting rules of the land department
is not intended as a reflection upon the
officers of that department, upon whom
devolved the difficult task of admins
tering the act of March 3, 1877, which
was altogether unlike any preceding |
land law, and the rational application
of which could only be developed and
ascertained by long experience and
observation in its practical admins
tration. Such recitation, however,
does show that the correct method Of
administering ana~applying the act
was learned at great cost to the claim
ants hereunder and that the errors
n ifperfections ia its earlier admin
istration fell heavily upon them.
Your committee believe that in all
S where the desert and claimant
failed to obtain title to the land, from
whatever cause it may have happened,
if not from his own fraudulent or un-
lawful act, the first payment should be
repaid to him, his heirs Or assigns.
The Government itself has lost no
thing. and it cannot in equity and JUS
tice retain this money for which the
claimant, without fault upon his part,
has received no benefit.
There is no occasion to extend the
provisions of the bill t o desrt claims
under the act of 1891, because "a
since that act assignments have been
in conformity with it's ex-
press direction, and (2) before the
OF that enactment the rulings Of
tn land department as to what is de-
sert land, as to including small areas
OF non-irrigable lands as to compact
of the claim, and other matters
had become uniform and we're set forth
in circulars and regulations so that
and subordinate land officers
were given such full information as to
impossible the mistakes Incl
dent to the administration Of the ear
lier act.