The Estancia news. [volume] (Estancia, Torrance County, N.M.) 1904-1912, 1909-02-12
nCTING COMMISSIONER
REVERSES DECISION
Ut Register and Receiver of Santa Fe Land Office in Regard to
Desert Land Ruling in Case Of Eckey Dunbar ri
Land Desert in Character

| Washing ton, D c., December rs, 1908.
David F. Eckley
vs.
Engolia Dunbar
issed-Register and
Receiver reversed.
Register and Receiver,
Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Sirs:
Engelia Dunbar has appealed
from your decision of May 6, 1908, re-
commencing the cancellation of her I. .
L. E. No. 664, made September 16, 1906,
for the Sc. Ia Sec Q, and NE. IA Sec.
n,T.7N., RISE.
On June II, 1907, David F.
Eckley filed contest affidavit against
that portion Of the above described en-
try as is embraced within the Sc. Ia
Sec 2, alleging the non desert character
of the land.
At the hearing held Ssptem-
ber %. 1907, both parties appeared be-
fore U. s. Commissioner at Estancia,
N. M, under rule 35 of practice and
submitted testimony. Final hearing
was had before you on October Z. 1907.
Your decision recommended
that the entire entry be cancelled, as
you were Of the opinion that all the
land included in the entry win produce
reasonably remunerative crops without
artificial irrigation and was therefore,
non desert in character.
Six witnesses testified in be-
half Of contestant and eight in behalf
Of contestse.
Contestants witnesses resid-
cd in the vicinity of the land, but they
had known the land less than one year
prisr to contest; practically all of their
testimony related to crops raised by
them without irrigation in the year 1906,
a year during which there was much
greater rainfall than for many years
prior thereto; these witnesses were
mostly homestead settlers who had
raised their first crops during the year
1906, and because that crop raised on
lands of p actically the sane character
of the land involved (upen which no crop
had been raised) were fairly remunera-
tive they were of the opinion that this
land would also raise paying crop.
They had absolutely nothing to base
their conclusions on except an expert
ence of one year, orless in that vicinity.
Instances were given where these set
tiers had raised corn, oats, fodder crops
&c, but it devolved in cross eyamina-
tion that their crops had been sold lin
the sheck'' for fodder as fifteen bushels
of corn to the acre was the largest yield
shown, while some Of the witnesses had
raised only twelve bushels in that un-
usually wet year.
Contestee's Witnesses had
known the land frsm five to twenty-five
years and some of them held desert
claims in that vicinity and they were
unanimous in their statements and opin.
lens that taking one year with another
reasonably renumerative crops could not
he raised in that valley, and never had
been. without artificial irrigation.
This Office would not te WI r
rant<d in cancslling a desert lard entry
upon ashowing that remaperative crops
had been raj cd ina given lacaIity one
yearvih t art tici;tl irrigatio@. Quite
n nun il I eetrics sd becn made in
the 10 alily Of the laad under dc dc. ert
landlaws, nd tina locality is undoubted-
ly an arid ygion Strong proof Should
therefore, ter CURED to establish It's
noa desert character a.-d that taking
one year with another, it viii, without
artificial irrigation, produce hay ant
other agricultural crops in paying quan
titles
No such testimony was give
in this case, but on the contrary, con
testes's witnesses who had known tn
lands for many years, testified that thi
Hand was desert in cifsraster and tha