Arizona republican., 1909-07-15

[
 nation service; as one decreases the other will increase; that by separa- ton of the offices there is added cost in both cash and inconvenience; that the present offices do not enable the employees of the reclamation service to do as effective work as if better To- cated and numerous others, the sum total of which is that it is only good business policy, in short. that to build will be to save money and time and convenience and incidentally furnish the valley and association the best possible advertisement at no direct cost for that purpose.
 In response to a question by MT. Laird as to the land office collecting for the amount. the association wilt owe the government, Judge Kibbey explained that the land office can collect only from public lands. The association must collect from titled lands with which the government can not deal direct. paying the money over to the land office in accordance with law. At another time while speaking, Judge Kibbey took occasion to state his dislike of the name adopted quite generally, that of water temple He said the building was not to be a temple. but an office. The name, however, is not the crux of the issue. which is the house itself.
 MT Fowler. in the course of his re- marks read the following letters: One is from F. H. Newell, director of the reclamation service, whom current rumor had stated did not endorse the proposed office building. Another is from Dr. H. H. Stone. a member of the board of governors The third is from MT. Waite, settlement agent of the reclamation service.
 Washington. D. C.. July ', 1909. Mir B. A. Fowler,
 President, Salt River Valley Water
 Users Association.
 Phoenix, Arizona.
 Dear Sir
 In reply to yours of June 29:
 The plan of the construction of building by the Water Users Associa- tion for the joint occupancy of the association and the government ap- pears to me to be very wise. Such building would pro- mote economy in the man agement the project and is therefore in my opinion quite desir- able. There should be no difficulty in planning a building that would serve the needs of the project indef- initely.
 In regard to my statement con- corning the payment of water right charges to the receiver of the local land office it is probable that I stated the law as I understood 1t; namely that the Reclamation Act provides in Sec ,: '"The annual instalments shall be paid to the receiver of the local land office of the district in which the land is situated" This provision of law is recognized in paragraph 6 of the contract between the Water Users Association and the Secretary of the Interior which provides that the United States shall in no manner be responsible for the sums collected by said Association until they have been paid into the hands of the Receiver of the local land office as provided by law and in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.
 Paragraph , of the contract pro vides that the Association shall promptly collect and require prompt payment of the charges in such man ner as the Secretary of the Interior may direct and that it will promptly pay the sums collected by it to the Receiver of the local land office for the district in which the lands are situated"
 This feature of the law was fully discussed with Judge Kibbey at the time the contract with the association was formulated.
 As this matter is regulated by the law the department can, of course, recognize no other method of pay ment. The contract contemplates the. original collection of these sums by the association and our experience is that large part of this money is