, 1904-03-17

The Sun is indebted to the
Wyoming Tribune for the follow.
ing article on the latest ruling of
the General Land Office
ing Desert final proof:
Secretary Hitchcock has made
a new ruling in regard to final
proofs in desert land entries.
says a Washington dispatch.
The ruling is the result of an
inquiry concerning the accept
ance by the land office of final
proof of an entryman in Wyo-
ming, said proof consisting of ev-
idence showing that a marked in
crease in the growth of grass, or
grass sufficient to support stock
had been produced On the desert
land. 1t seems that certain ex-
pressions in that decision has
been taken as indicating a pur-
pose to encourage the offer and
sanction the acceptance of final
proofs in desert land entries that
do not clearly establish a strict
compliance with all the require
ment of law. That such a result
was not contemplated when that
decision was rendered, and that
the department does not intend
there shall be any relaxation of
the requirements; and that the
law and regulations governing
such matters must be complied
with in every essential particular,
is most clearly set forth in the
ruling made.
The secretary holds that entry
men must have an absolute right
to sufficient water to successfully
irrigate the land. The system of
bitches to conduct the water to
and distribute it over the land
must be adequate for this purpose,
and that the land must be actual
ly, irrigated for a sufficient peri
cd of time to demonstrate the
suticiency of the water supply
and effectiveness of the system
are essential facts which must in
all be clearly established by
the proofs. Actual tillage must,
as a rule, be shewn. If, however.
it be shown, and it must be made
to c~onclusively SO appear. that
because of climatic conditions
crops otherthan grass cannot be
successfully produced, or that ac-
tual tillage of the soil will destroy
or injure its productive qualities,
the actual production of a crop of
hay of merchantable value as the
result of actual irrigation may be
accepted as sufficient compliance
with the requirements as to cult
vation. Proofs which show that
because of irrigation, there is on
the land, "a marked increase in
the growth of grass" or that
grass sufficient to support stock
has been produced on all the
land" will not be accepted as
showing compliance with that
provision of the amendatory act
of 1891 ''that proof shall be fur
Their required of the cultivation of
of one-eigth of the land"
This ruling directly affects APP
plicants for patents to lands I'M
der a number of the large irriga.
ton bitches in several of the ives.
tern states. Under this decision
the mere presentation of a water
right secured by purchase from a
company will not be considered
sufficient proof 1t must he ac-
companied by conclusive evidence
that the capacity of the ditch and
the water supply are sufficient to
irrigate the land hat the ditch
company has actually supplied
the water required and that the
land has been actually cultivat-
ed.
1t has frequently been the prac-
tice of large canal companies to
sell water rights far in excess of
the water supply or the carrying
capacity of the ditch, and this de-
cisiop, by rendering such water
rights of no value as proofs, may
serve to protect innocent purchas-