Imperial Valley press., 1910-04-16
Contract to Convey Title Does Not Constitute Fraud in
 Land Entry
Not Necessary to irrigste Entire Tract To Prove Reelsimability ot Desert Land When Such irrigation Involves Waste of Water-Local Land Office Reversed on Appeal.


 of general interest to settlers in Ina perial Valley. One of these refers to the expenditure of money on a desert land entry made by another than the entryman, and the other is in re- gard to the distribution of water on desert land entries.
 In the case of Williams vs. Kirk, one of thirteen similar contests in one group and vicinity, the charge was made that the entry on desert lands had not been made for the entry mans own use or benefit but for the benefit of the Red Lands Irrigation and Power Company. and that the real entryman had done no work, con structed no irrigation ditches expend- ed no money or labor calculated to reclaim the land embraced in said entry.
 It was shown that a form of con- tract had been entered into between the entryman and the irrigation com pany, which was really in form of a bond, whereby the entryman was ob hgated to pay to the irrigation com pany a certain sum, for which the company agreed to furnish good and sufficient water right for irrigation of the land to the full exetnt required by law to make final proof for recla- nation, and that in lieu of the money payment, at the time of the issuance of the receivers certificate or other indication of title from the United States, the entryman was to convey to the irrigation company all of the land so held except twenty acres.
 On the facts applying to all of these thirteen cases two contentious were made against the entries: first, that the bond or contract between entry man and the irrigation company was a mere cloak to hide a prior illegal contract, oral or written. to convey all but twenty acres to the irrigation company, wherefore the entry was il- legal and must be cancelled; second, that the entryman had not compiled with the Jaw in. expenditure of one dollar per acre on the land during eah year after date of entry. The local land office sustained both con- tentions.
 In the appeal case, the Land Of flee, in discussing the matter. cited
 ;r, HaIs in which it was held that:
 This office cannot seek the source of money expended for purposes of reclamation or determine private in terests under indefinite contracts with reference to such work These are matters for local courts. Sufficient it is if entryman causes in good faith expenditure of the required amount in permanent improvements for the purpose of @eclaiming the entered land"
 The Land Office holds that this is applicable to these cases. and that organization for cooperation is not in itself evidence of conspiracy or fraud The opinion states that eff the contract with the Red Lands Company creates in fact a lien enforcible by judicial foreclosure. it is no more ob- jectionable in form than the govern ment imposes and requires of entry men of lands in it's own reclamation projects"
 This opinion further says: The facts comport with good faith. honesty and fair dealing. No provision of the desert land act or of any other principle of law cited or found by the department would justify the cancel lation of these entries. where the en- trymen have actually reclaimed the land and made a desert productive of food for man and beast in great abundance"
 The decision concludes, however, that this decision merely "dispOses of the contest and Is not intended to give effect to any illegal contract or to any private understanding aside from or under them"
 The second case was one in which 1t is held that the entryman is not required to show that water has been actually distributed over all the irri- gable land in the entry,
 This was tine case of Alonzo B. Cole in the Durango. Colorado, land dis trict, in which the local land office held that Cole must show that he had actually irrigated and reclaimed all of the irrigabie land in his entry. ItI appeared that Cole had cultivated and t.-t..t.a aa s,,.,eh aa Ana afo,hfh og