Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-03-10

% August last 10 appeared from these
hat senator GugEenheim had asked 60
have certain lands az Ia Juuta. Colo.
set apart gs an arid park the with
drawal TO De made under the super
Visory power as with water power sites.
Ar BalinEer directed that the With
dr3wai be- made
What is an arid park" asked SEN
ator Root
Il don't know"
May be- it is the same as a dry
town. suggested Representative Ohm
stead
MT Garfield next was examined as
to the plan Doe adopted of cooperating
with water users associations us tu
reclamation projects and the ssulnco
10y him of reclamation certificate
which came 20 DE known as GARFIELD
currency
The certificates were given as OWE
dences of work done ON projects. tine
certificates Co be- turned in 900 payment
OF water charges when water was de-
liyercd on the land
Secy. Raningcr acting under an
opinion of ATTY Gen. Wickersuam.
stopped tho practise.
Mr.. Garfield charged to-day that
neither Mr. Wirkersham nor President
Tart had the facts and complete iu-
formation before them on which To-
base proper decision as Go the cert-
ncates.
RECLAMATION BONDS
The witness was asked if 220o0o00o
issue of bonds. reDomTenoed los PrssI-
dent Tan was not made necessary to
relieve hardsnips growing ont of thc
cooperative plan. BE declared tine
proposed issue OF bonds would cover o.
much wider nelc of reclamation than
that begun under his administration
of the interior department
I'm fact" declared Nh Garfield.
much to tine surprise of tho committee.
Il don't believe 10 is necessary To- issue
any bonds az an"
But aren't there hardships growing
out of the present status az inc pruJ-
cct2' asked senator Sutherland.
In individual cases. yes. they rec
suit from failure ON the part of entry
men 90 appreciate the dihicuitiDs of de-
veloping irrigated lands and from their
going ON the land long before the
projects could ba completed and water
turned ON. They are constantly warm
cd against doing this and went az their
own hazard The government is not
responsible lor their plight
MI Garfield said he Was not cCr-
tain that bond issue, as now Vro-
posed would hurry up the projects
To- proper completion any faster Than
would be possible under The old way
81 raising funds by the sale of public
lands.
MANY Of the projects are expert
mental" said the witness. "and it Dr.
serious question ASS TO whether Il
would be wise 90 go faster than the
sale OF land allows. Physically the
projects could be completed at q
much earlier date by bond issue.
but doubt 81 90 would decrease the
cost"
But the law makes no provision
for payments In labor instead 81
money. does IT, asked senator Nell
son.
mo"
WERE FUNDS AVAILABLE.
The witness then declared that
during the time the certificates were
being issued there were funds avail
able To- carry on the work. The ceru-
ncates were loo reality. he said, simply
a method OF keeping books There was
no effort 90 augment the reclamation
fund hy certificates
Mr.. Garfield declared ATTY Gen.
WiclSersham had held that the CO.
operative contracts viii ne valid n
there were funds available for the
work
"He evidently had in mind the Ides
that there were no funds available,
continued Mr Garfield. when as a
matter ~ fact some se.000.O00 was
available am the time"
Atty Pepper here concluded his exc
animation but ATTY Brandeis Inter-
rOgatcd the witness further concern
ing the Cunningham claims.
Secv Ballinger in his reply o.
President Taft, stated that when Do
received CLAWS protest against the
clear-llsting of the Cunningham claims,
he brought the matter To- the attention
OF Secv Garfield. AZ Governor Moore.
ono OF the claimants. already had asked
Mr.. Garfield that the patents De held
up and that the secretary agreed with
him
90 YOU recall any such conference
with Commissioner Ballingcr'' asked
Mt Brandeis
4 don't. ] may have seen Gov. Moore
az some time but 90 the best of my
recollection, ! had uo conference with
Commissioner BalNnger as 20 the pat
ents in the Cunningham cases
so if the patents were suspended
the action was taken by Mr.. BallinEcr
or some subordinate ON their own re-
sponsibility?' asked senator Nelson
~ had nothing 10 do with H."
"You would have approved Of that
action n % had been presented Co you
wouldn't youF'
yes. most certainly would
did YOU ever know the Cunning
ham claims had been clear-hstcd2"
asked MI Bmndcis
Il did not
"'rhat action would not have mot
your approval, would it2'
Most certainly not
The witness declared the Cunning
ham claims were purely a land Office
matter and there WAS no ocCa sion for
Secy. Ballingcr TO call them 10 his at