Arizona republican., 1909-05-11
n 1-t " BRIDGE SENTIMENT
REPLY OF MR. BARTLETT TO TEMPE CRITICISM
The Position and Purposes of the
 Bartlett Land and Cattle Go.


 inclination or habit, to enter into newspaper c6ntroversy, especially one which involves a reference to my own personal affairs However, as the ex-' istence of The Bartlett Heard Land and Cattle company and the position taken by MT. Heard and myself seem to be the principal-afmost the only argument offered by our Tempe neighbOrs in favor of locating the bridge over the Salt river opposite their city, it seems imperative that some one undertake to justify our ex- istence and make a frank statement regarding our attitude that shall cor rect any misapprehension which may have found Iodgment in the public mind.
 I wish to preface that statement with the assurance of my belief that those members of the Tempe Bridge committee with whom MT. Heard and l are acquainted (some of them are our personal and highly esteemed friends) are not Intentionally endors- ing the various publications which re- fleet upon the honor and integrity of MT. Heard and myself and which openly accuse us of double dealing. Unfortunately membership in that committee make the members respon- sible for these publications, whatever may be their character. If these gen. tlemen actually believe that we are conscienceless south side land specu- lators having no thought for the pub lie veal, but are in this community for the sole purpose of seeing how many dollars we can ruthlessly squeeze out of the present residents of the valley and the future home mak- ing immigrants, wish they would manfully state their views over their own signatures. "
 The statement is as follows, namely:
 The Bartlett Heard Land and Cattle company bought their lands in the open market in the year 1901. during the seasons of drought, at a time when no one else seemed inclined to take the risk. It purchased these lands for the sole purpose of develop ing and farming large model ranch, and with no thought of subdivision. We are glad to have any one look over the property and decide for him. self whether or not the development thus far made has been injurious to this section of the country
 Subdivision was never suggested until about two years ago and then by an official of the U. S. government. was at that time, and still am, reluctant to abandon the original plan. When the suggestion was made we frankly stated that we could not rn falr tn af oil ha Ia de under the San Francisco canal (of which we had controD in the short space of two years, because throwing that extra acreage of cultivated land upon the market for quick sale, would depreciate the value not only of our own holdings, but those of our neighbors as well.
 At MT. Hill's request we made a proposition, which as I recall, contain ed only two variations rom the rules. as we understood them, of the recla- nation service. One was the volun- tary offer on our part to give the San Francisco canal, as it then existed to the government without cost, which was in effect giving it to the Water Users association. This variation we hardly think would De objected to even by our Tempe friends Tha other variation related to an extension of time We said that if we put that portion of our property under the res- eryoir we should close it out as rapid ly as possible; but should we find it impracticable to complete the sale within the prescribed two years we should want an extension of time up to three additional years as a pro- tection to our own and others inter ests
 Let me say, in parenthesis. that I Halter myself not one of our Tempe acquaintanees, as individuals, would have questioned our good faith when we said, without qualification, that We, would close out the land as rap idly as possible. They never would have fntimated, either In conversation or in print, that they thought we were trying to secure a postponement of five years, at the end of which time we could realize top-notch prices They Knew we were not that kind of, men.
 Subsequently. MT. Hill reported that our proposition was acceptable to the authorities at Washington provided llldI It was dlSO dCCepldDlt 10 Ine Water Users association.
 We afterwards learned that when the matter was mentioned to one or two of the governors of the Water Users association they thought an objection might be made by large land owners then members of the associa- ton, and the matter was dropped never having been officially reported to, the board. Had this plan been promptly approved in The outset, portion of the land would have been sold before the bridge was even lin the air.
 Last week, after a consultation with President Fowler, we went before the board of governors, not with any re- quest that the subdivision plan be adopted, but to informally talk the matter oyer and learn if the associa- ton would deem it for the best in- terests of the valley, and if the gov ernors cared to take action either for or against this proposition. We dis tinctly stated, in open meeting, that we did not wish any advantage giv- en or favoritism shown to our com pany and that if the execution of the plan were not for; the general vel fare, we would not want the gever- nors to sanction Gas they assuredfy xuOItI6 ha iCio