The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-08-17

chasers Of the bonds-the members of the
company themselvcs-they offered $500
worth OF stock with each 500 worth of
bonds. That is, for each 500 they paid
bearing securities. which the farmers-the
users OF the water-would have TO pay,
They could afford TO do this. for they
would ultimately get over a million and
q half dollars out Of the farmers, as We
shall know.
In August, 1905 they made contract
with the state land board for 43 900
acres OF Carey act lands and were per-
mitted TO fix the price for their water
at $40 per acre-an outrageous price con
slderins the hsrt investment REQUIRED OF the
their bonds and went ahead with work
on the canals and with selling the lands.
Diversion Dam Destroyed.
In June the following year the dive~-
sion dam went out. Who was responsible
We don't know. Some say the dam was
under the dam. 1t appears TO have been
built, however, under the supervision OF
competent engineers, but in view Of the
silly ohaTsc1er 5srd OF the soil Il | was prep
put in their crops, which OF course, they
lost, The dam was rebuilt by the Mel
vile and Oasis companies. the expense
being borne in proportion to their re-
spective interests In the dam The Oasis
company also continued the work OF run
ming. canals and putting In headgates,
who had bought their land. Instead OF
paying for this In cash. however, they
turned the amount for the work on the
payment OF the land, leaving the farmers
high and dry, II is said they owe about
900 for this work. The company says
1t don't owe a cent.
People Make Complaint.
Great complaint was made about the
way the canals were laid out and the
failure to have any bridges across them,
We know from observation that the wa
ter wouldn't run in certain directions the
engineers had surveyed for IL to run, and
that land owners themselves had to do
work on main canals to get water onto
their land, The company explains that
they were so anxious TO get water on
the land for the season OF 1910 that the the
is SO, but probably the reason was thai
the company had no money to do any
more work.
No Bond on File.
Up to the spring OF 1910 the company
had sold about f., 900 acres OF land, and
had received their first payment They
had put up no bond with the land board
as guarantee that they would carry
out their contract with the farmers, al
though the law specifically requires them
to do so. They had also pocketed the
first payment on the water, although
rule of the board requires this to be
paid In to them until the satisfactory
completion OF their work Just why, the
board was so Ienient TO them and so
careless about protecting the interests of
the farmers requires better explana-
ton than Mr.. Lynch. secretary OF the
board. gives to the Deseret News. He
says these endorsements of the provis-
ions Of the law would have bankrupted
the company. Then this was sufficient
proof that the company had no money
of their own that they were dependent
upon the farmers for the money to carry
on the work and to pay the bonds they
were holding One would like TO know
where some of those bonds went to. and
who got the $4,000 counsel fee.
Dam Again Goes Out.
In May. 1910, the dam went out again.
and the farmers on both the Melville and
Oasis tract turned out in a frantic en-
deavor TO save their crops, and, dispenS-
Ing with the diversion dam, built canal
on three miles up the river and took the
water directly out OF the stream. thus
forever doing away with the danger OF a
dam going out and leaving them without
water at a critical time, They worked
though. OF course. the canal will have 10
be strengthened in places before 1t will
be safe and permanent. But this Will
be done before water IS turned on next
season.
The Melville company paid their pro-
assessment on their water users. The
Oasis company has paid about S2500
leaving about $4,000 unpaid. and not
likely to be paid We don't know what
900 they received first payment for
the water they never delivered. 1t is
said they even owe for recording their
contracts.
How Debts Are to Be Paid
The way the company proposes to raise
money TO pay off their obligations Is not
by going down into their pockets and