Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1912-11-16


tiers In those extraordinarily dry sea-
sons which occasionally prevail II no.
900 acre feet more than II now avail
able. and in my judgment the board
should 90 declare. 1t would be possible
to reduce this amount Of needed water
by arrangements under which the de-
PENDANT company would limit its future
sale Of lands included in the segrega-
ton. Whether this idea IL practical !
am not prepared to say. but think It is.
1t might be possible, also, to limit the
water right attached to lands sold In
the future so. that they would not
share in extraordinarily low water sea-
sons In the water that could be fur
nished by the company. / believe an
agreement of this kind would be legal.
In other words such lands would have
their full quota OF water when Y was
obtainable but whens water became
scarce, would be deprived of Its use.
Such lands would be practically in the
same condition as are the lands water
ed from a certain stream which does
not furnish sufficient water at all sea-
sons of the year and where other lands
water when such scarcity exists. The
relief, however. afforded by this
method. would not meet all the ex-
igencies of the present case, although
1t might help out considerably.
II believe this board has power to
set a time limit at the end Of which
the defendant company would be COM
PEELED to show to the satisfaction OF
the board. upon a hearing had at which
all interested parties were present.
that the conditions imposed by the
board In regard to further water sup
ply would be provided for, or an order
of forfeiture made. The main ques-
ton with us is what Is best for the in
terests of the state of the settlers and
Of those financially interested. AS b.
fore stated the order of forfeiture
would be the beginning, not the end o.
litigation. If we were dealing with
bankrupt company which had shown
inability to comply with its obligations
on account Of financial embarrass-
ment, or, If we were dealing with a
company that had made no attempt to
carry out the conditions of their con-
tract, very drastic action would be
warranted on our part. In such event
would say that it was our duty to
declare the contract forfeited in its en-
tirety and to take such action as in our
judgment was proper to save the bond
holders. II they could be saved without
entailing further hardships upon the
settlers. This condition does not per-
tain, however, to the North Side COM
pany. This defendant company is
financially able, SO far as our assur-
ances are concerned, to comply with all
Its obligations. There is no reason to
believe that a judgment against the
company would not at once be salts
fled. This company has expended up
on the reservoirs and buildings upon
the tract itself about $650,000 IL our in
formation Is correct, and our inspection
of the works shows that this sum Is
substantially correct. The defendant
company is already, we are assured,
negotiating with the government for a
water supply on the upper Snake river
in conjunction with the government
itself. That compliance therefor on
the part Of the company is possible adj
mits Of little doubt.
State Has Duty.
1.-THE state itself Is vitality concerned
and the interests OF the people of the
entire state may be injuriously affected
by our action. I do not believe the
North Side settlers desire such action
TAX en- by this board as would initiate
against the best interests of the state
of which they are citizens. My &C.
quaintance with these people leads me
to believe that they are anxious simply
to have their own rights protected ami
thereafter assured and this done in
such way as will not work injury
upon the state To simply declare a
forfeiture at the present time OF the
would under the circum-
stances, in my judgment, prevent pro-
motors of other projects from obtain
ing capital to carry them on. This
would entail great harship upon our
people generally. 1t would be urged
that by reason Of a dispute between
the company and our citizens whose
interests were antagonistic to the COM
oany, this board had shown a DISPOSE
ton to ignore the rights Of the bond
holders of the company and of the
itself. although 1t was
and forestall what should be
the dCtlOn OF the courts. his pTeCe-
dent would undoubtedly seriously in
jure US in the future. I believe the DIFF
Of selling irrigation bonds,
which we are all aware of, would be so
by such course as to make
such sales impossible in the future.
What then is our proper course.
taking all the circumstances into con-
I answer this, SO far as
am concerned, by saying that in my
Judgment we should make an order
first the idea of this board
that 10000 acre feet Of water in ad-
dltion to the present supply should
be provided by the company and al
time limit fixed within which the
company be compelled to act. /
believe. at the end Of that time limit,
II the company did not comply with
the conditions of the order. the matter
should at once be taken into the courts
FOR final settlement. II the defendant
company would undertake. through its
upon such order being made
that the company would not comply
ho nrdor Z tul no xpoll f, onrv,