Las Vegas optic. (East Las Vegas, N.M.) 1908-1921, 1912-09-11

"tcea1 ua@ S@4A 416 Ou tAS WVth Ia
pidly. When cold weather set in las
winter the engineer for the gran
board asked the work be suspended
as it was deemed poor policy to pul
frozen dirt into the structure OF The
dam. Mr.. Murphey stated that the
grant board, upon application Of Mr.
Pierce, granted an extension OF time
upon the Camfield company's con
tract from March of this year to De
cember |. Upon the death Of Mr.
Pierce, work was not resumed. The
Camfield company was notified sew.
eral times to resume operations, but
paid no attention to the notification.
Then the grant board. rescinded its
former action in extending the con-
tract and authorized its attorney to be-
gin suit for the collection Of the bond
and damages, amounting to several
hundred thousands OF dollars.
AT this juncture, according to Mr..
Murphey. James X. Thorpe, director
in the CamfeId company, came to
Las Vegas and offered to make some
kind Of settlement with the board.
The matter was discussed at some
length and Mr.. Thorpe returned to
Denver. Later Mr.. Thorpe and Harold
w. Moore, also Of Denver. returned
and offered the board proposition to
invest s150.0O0 Of Its money in com
pany to finish the work. the Aqua
Pura company, the Federal Light and
Traction company Of New York and
Messrs. Thorpe and Moore each TO put
up an equal amount, the boariss in
vestment to be in irrigation bonds
paying six per cent interest AS
there were conflicting statements con-
cerning the probable cost Of the work
the grant board turned down the pro-
position. Mr.. Murphey said Mr.. Cam
field later had proposed to tine board
that he be released from his BOND and
paid reasonable amount for the ork
he and his company had done, in con-
sideration for which he offered to-
deed back to the grant The 10000
acres of land given him as eomren-
sation for building the project 1t
was stated by Mr.. Murphey hat lAr.
camfield agreed that this matter be
handled through trustees and that the
value of the work done by him be -es-
timated by an egineer representing
himself and one appointed by the
grant board, and in case these men
did not agree, that disinterested
engineer from some other state than
Colorado or New Mexico make the ap-
praisement. Mr.. Murphey stated that
a rough estimate of the amount to be
paid Mr.. Camfield on such an agree
ment would be from $4,000 10 $780,
900 He stated that the grant Eoard
at present is considering this propo-
sion and awaiting the arrival of data
promised by Mr.. Camfeld
Mr. Goodall stated facts to be prac-
tically as Mr.. Murphey had explained
them. He declared that Messrs.
Thorpe and Moore, upon being asked
II they would be willing to allow the
grant board to share ID the profits Of
the company they proposed To organ
ize in return for the Investment Of one
fourth of the cost or building the re-
servoirs, and furnish bond for liquidat-
ing damages, replied they would not
consider such proposition. Thorpe
and Moore, according to Mr.. GoodaIl,
also refused to name maximum fig
ure governing the amount Of bonds
TO be issued by their proposed com
pany.
was for these reasons, principally,
said Mr.. Goodall, that the proposition
was rejected There was a discre-
pancy also in the statements Of
Messrs, Thorpe and Moore First they
said they could complete the works
for something Ike sS5O,OOO. Later
they demanded 100000, Mr.. Camfield
stated as his opinion the work could
be consummated at an outlay Of about
100000. Mr.. GoodaIl gave it as his
fronttnuad IN page Fnnrl