Coeur d'Alene evening press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1907-1929, 1910-03-09
PROF. JONES
ON THE STAND
WITNESS WAS SUBJECTED TO
CROSS EXAMINATION IN DE-
TAIL ON SOIL SAMPLES.
Gave Testimony the Greater Part Of
the Day.

esN OAAs
In the Washington Water Power
hearing when pushed to describe the
character Of 'soupy SOIL" the wit
ness stated that the word "soupy"
was not In his vocabulary as q soil
chemist. Witness did not ind any
floating bog" or Deats. The theory
OF the geological formation OF the
81. Joe river and particularly the
lands In controversy along that river
was dwelt upon. Witness described
these lands being once covered BY
water forming an arm OF Occur a.
Alene lake. Witness stated that the
reason for not taking soil samples
from the east half Of section %.
Cherry creek, was because the SAM
pIes taken from the west half OF 20
were from the same typical forma-
ton as far as the eye could Judge.
Witness stated that he had not
seen any slough grass or swamp
grass. Prof. Hiigar's text. entitled
Soils" was recognized as authori-
ties. Would not conslder all produc-
lions OF the agricultural department
OF the U, 8. as authorities. Had new
en- heard adverse criticisms OF Or.
Hilgar's Soils" Did not see cat
tails projecting through the Ice. but
did see wide leaves OF Wild grasses
showing the character OF the south
ern portion OF the big meadow 20 be
practically the same AZ the north
eastern portion OF that meadow.
which had been thoroughly sampled.
Witness testified that the soil sur
yey required four days and that the
soil survey party consisted OF +. o.
Martin, u. s. mineral inspector. =.
d. Capel, special agent OF the U, ).
government; Prof. 8. r. Childers, as
sociate professor Of agronomy and
agronomist OF the agricultural de-
partment OF the University Of Idaho.
and Prof. Shirley s. Jones. professor
OF agricultural chemistry at the
university.
Prof Shirley s. Jones. OF the Ida
no university. was subjected to a
cross examination In detail on the
soil samples taken on the lands In
controversy. and the methods pur-
sued by the witness In taking the
samples. particularly why one hole
was made deeper than another and
why two feet OF one sample was
put into one bag and three feet into
another soil bag.
This line Of cross examination de-
yeioped that Prof Jones had not
mixed clay with silt or root mat with
clay, but had placed like soils togeth-
er from the analysis Of which the
exact soil food constituents and
quantity OF phosphorus acid, potash.
lime and nitrogen on the lands In
controversy were aseertained. Wit
ness testified that he had made
laboratory composite Of the field COM
poslte OF samples taken as a basis
by which the elements and their
quantities in the soil were determin-
ed. The witness stated he had taken
samples OF subsolls that appeared
from It's constituency when taken to
be clay. but upon chemical analysis
proved somewhat different than
opinion first entertained.
Witness explained that no com
posite Of samples was made 10 make
appear a higher grade Of soil than
really exists, but that the usual or
customary method Of sampllng on
soil surveys had been followed Sew
eral objections raised by the gov
eminent counsel TO questions pro-
pounded by Attorney Post on the
grounds that they were impertinent
and therefore Questionable. were
sustained by Register Batting, but
the Irritating treatment OF the wit
ness continued throughout the fore