Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-04-09

land board was the next to make d
statement In support OF the boards ac-
ton. He said that out OF all govern
Inent lands granted to Utah there re-
inained but about million and a half
acres to be divided among T. state
institutions. This land, ne said. could
easily be sold for $3.50 or 81 per acre,
aud II the board would sell II for any
less II would simply be taking that
much away from those institutions
and from the people In general who are
taxed. The state has only about S0O,-
900 acres of lieu lands from which Sc
lections may be made. IN Idaho the
state lands sell for the minimum price
OF $40 per acre. and the secretary was
OF the opinion that Utah lands should
certainly be worth s.. 80 per acre.
John G. Paskett Of summit county
stated that the action of the board was
detrimental TO the interests OF the
farmers in this county, as there Is only
a very poor quality Of state land left
and II Is not worth more than from 81
to 81 per acre. He thought that the
minimum price should be 81 and the
maximum 81 per acre.
Commissioner Hayes Of the board
said that the board had placed price
OF 81 per acre on some school lands In
summit GUILTY., anu " Hdu Utfll dp~
praised at less than that sum and that
II cost fully 81 per acre TO run It
through the books OF the Office. He
thought that the land was not worth
anything II 1t was not worth $3.50 per
acre, and, as, at the present rate. the
land would all be gone In about 80
months, he believed II the duty OF the
board TO get as good a price as pos
sble for It..
INCREASE OPPOSED.
j, +. Call Of Boxeldcr county was
opposed to the increased price and
argued that 1t simply shut out the poor
farmer and allowed large corporations
to secure choice lands. Many OF the
people could not afford to pay $3.50 per
acre, and then have to pay for water
for irrigating II,
The Increased price was strongly OPP
posed by 4. c. Callister of Willard
county. He said that there are many
people In his county who were eager
to get n small tract Of land for a home.
but they could not afford to pay 81 30
per acre for the land and then S. per
acre for water for 1t, He argued that
II the board should sell land to 200 peo-
pie who want homes and would pay
Sl.50 per acre for It and improve It,
the taxes on the land would within
short time amount TO more than the
Increased sale price which the board
has fixed on the land
William Howard of Emery county
was also opposed to the increased price.
lie said that dry farming had not been
a success I'm his county and that was
another reason why the lower price
should be restored. He contended that
If the price was reduced TO its former
rate It would greatly encourage the
small farmer and result in the cultva-
ton of thousands of acres OF land which
is now lying idle.
W. W. Wilson, chairman OF the board
Of commissioners of this county Com
missioner w. q, Wilson of Weber coun-
~. and ]. +. Tolton Of Beaver county,
expressed themselves in favor Of the ac-
ton of the land board after listening TO
the explanations of the members of the
board. Mr.. Wilson Of Weber county
made a motion that the action Of the
board IN fixing the price at $3.50 per
acre be sustained.
WINS MOTION PREVAILED.
r. G.. VIM of Juab county opposed
the motion and offered an amendment
to the effect that the board of land COM
missioners be requested to restore the
price of land to $50 per acre as the
minimum price. Chairman Evans ruled
NJ. Wilson's motion out Of order
whereupon motion to adjourn was
made and lost. Mr.. WINS motion was
then carried by vote Of 30 to f.,
y copy of the motion was ordered to
be forwarded To the governor and also
the board. The meeting then adjourned,