Lincoln County times. (Jerome, Idaho) 1911-1919, 1912-09-19
$500 Per Year
Land Board Decision
Expected Oct. 2.
North Side Matters Taken Under
Amusement by the Board.

hearing on the complaint of the
North Side settlers before the state
land board was concluded last Thurs
day evening, and after short con-
sultation the board announced that
they would reserve their decision
until Oct 2nd or 3rd, in order that
the evidence may be carefully gone
over by the board, after the same
has been transcribed.
Attorney Hays on behalf of the
company, did not see fit to intro
duce any testimony tending to show
that the system was even techni-
cally or legally completed but at
tempted to show by an array of
figures how little water the settlers
could get along with by careful
usage He charged all the troubles
on the heads of the settlers and
styled those present at this hearing
as the same old crowd that had al
ways been kicking. He even went
50 far as to insult the land board by
practically telling them that this
matter was none OF their affairs;
that his company did not propose to
forfeit their contract; that was
matter he said, that could only be
settled in the courts.
In his closing argument before
the board, attorney johnson took
occasion to severely criticise the
company for the course they were
pursuing, and their insolent disre-
gard for the rights of the settlers and
its own obligations The company
= has not complied with the terms of
its contract; it has not acted in
good faith with the settlers-or the
I land board.
e Answering the oft repeated decla-
: rations that these agitations will de-
r ter capital from coming to the state,
Attorney Johnson said: y tell you
t that there is more capital driven out
. of the state by the failure of this
e company to redeem its pledges than
s this land board could ever drive out.
l. This company is blackening the fair
l. name of the state. 1t is causing the
,e impression TO go throughout the
lie country that Idaho does not compel
:, its irrigation companies to live up
to their contracts"
The able argument Of Mr.. john
son was listened to with much in
- terest, especially by the settlers pre-
" sent. In closing he assured the
board that the settlers were not to
be intimidated by threats Of taking
" them into court. He said all they
asked at this time was that the land
board would forfeit the contract, and
the settlers would take their chances
in the courts.
o. As to what course the land boart
ul will pursue is purely problematical
IT To the average reader, however, i
ty would appear that the land boarC
ed has only two alternatives, either t.
lat declare forfeiture, or compel tn
as company to ask for an extension o
he time in which to complete the sys
Ter tenn.
The basis for the demand of tn
- settlers is found in the followin
e1 sections of the statutes governing tn
nd Carey Act matters:
u, Section 1922. No contract shall b
made by the board which requires
Hat greater time than five years for the COZ
the struction of the works, but such tin
vs. may be extended by the board for p
hat Rod not exceeding three years.
40 Section 1923. Upon the failure of al
parties having contracts with the sta
ou' for the construction of irrigation work
ice to begin the same within the time spec
ion fed by the contract, or TO complete Il
no- same within the time or in accordan
eel with the specifications OF the contra
with the state to the satisfaction oil Il
'se state engineer, it shall be the duty OF q
at Register to give such parties written n
: to tice OF such failure; and, ii after peril
act OF sixty days from the sending OF SUI
, notice they shall have failed TO proce
:, with the work, or to conform to the 81
'iie cifications of their contract with t
ing state the bond and contract OF such pa
tios and oil works constructed therein