Lincoln County times. (Jerome, Idaho) 1911-1919, 1913-10-09


contract, the rrss deferred payment TEL
due M2rch /, 1910. sni one payment
each following Msrch until the iDl-
amount was paid. Bu. in shSs contract
wAs incorporated the contract Q; the
Company with the State which provided
ior the cons,ruciion .; 81 irrigation sys-
TEN II accordance with certain plans. in
Gliding provision i0r storage water. The
sntrvusn's Contract also provided that
the Company should deliver : certain
quantity q water sitter Il hAd served
notice that i VS. reaiy 70 furnish water.
The notice vs. gwen by the Company
Thai i would bs able - deliver water On
zn6 alter April !. 1879. bus i utterly
failed 70 deliver the water - 2sreed dur
ing The irrigation se2son Of lag. Was
that Obligation o. the pSrt Of the Com
pzny 10, = sacrei Ani binding Is the
Obligation q the entrymAn 10 make his
uavmen,s We think -. An5 that hence
ID uayuen. tel due Meh. !. 1910.
The sane condition = 70 delivery o.
water continued during the SEASONS Of
1910 and 1911. hence 70 payments tel
due Nch. !. 1911. y Mch. !. 1872, Il the
Obligations sre mutual and reciprocal.
The deliveries for the seasons Of 1912
A-S 1918 hsve been ample and adequate
Ans one therefore nigh. conclude thai
Ysvrent lei due Mch. !, 1913. But BY
the STATE contract, the Company were
bound 70 have the entire system CON-
nle,ei by Aug. a. 1912. including pro
vision ior storage vsssr. The system sAs
10. oomule.s-i. much Work remaining 10
D done On the canals and .A.erals - TIE
,-sc.. s. : shown bv detailed report
made By deputy S,ste Engineer Co-an,
fled some Gne II August, 1872. and no
provision 49, made Tor storage Up 70
5h21 time.
The COMPLETED system ,ni AZ ample
and adequate supply u ~-ses inc-ralns
tie storage -A.ar ~e7e the 7s4l consider
anon Tor the payments - te msie By
the enuynAa. hence the question arises
= ID whether q ID. theS- payments. OF
VIA. payments AZ ire ulde. he con
tract
True The Land Boari stt-r ;he time ior
the completion o. the system h-i expire;
granted 81 extension o. ihre~ ye-rs. oll
whether y 10. such action NJ. re.i-se
tie Company from tie forfeiture Of IL
contract. which, soooriins 70 the statute
.ook u.acs when ihe time hmi. Tor CON-
p.e-ins he system. : question Tor the
Cor-1s % 1s7-iie. = : 2lso the question
o: how many payments ARE due. II any,
under The contract such Al scton :
nov p=liing n the co1r-s, .ld believe
a. parties I'll L content so21.ie by the
i=c.sioa II that c2se-
The absolutely legitimate .nd bona Hie
contention Of tie settler ara contract
holder that ID payments are due o. have
beea camel 81 The Company do@ not
brand hin tie dishonest 'scA-a~Ag' that
you would make him ont 70 be.
Tie Land Beard il il solicitrde FOR
the welfare o. the Company granted th;-
extension on is own motion. - l under
stand. but manifested 10 such interest in
the welfare q the contract holder who
had bed placed in such : position, At
lezst many oiIhem had been, by reason
Of the Company failure and default in
the delivery OF water, that they were IN
able 10 make their payments, il any were
due.
Il seems TO NE it would have been
quite appropriate under the conditions,
and quite within the power OF the Land
Board to have said TO the Company, that
As condition precedent to the granting
OF an extension OF time to complete the
system, the Company should grant an
extension OF payments ON such terms and
for such time as seemed reasonable 10 the
Board, but this matter was in some way
overlooked.
But by the terms of the contract for
Jackson Lake storage the Company has
until 1917 in which to make dedication
OF that storage water to the lands here
You condemn US az dishonest if we do
not meet every payment just as it ma
lures, and If We did so, we would have
the entire contract except one payment
made before that time. and then, just
supposin' there wasn't any water there
to dedicate, the Company would have
our money and what would We have?
Experience possibly, but we've had lots
OF that.
But you say ii we are not able to pay.
Just ask the Company for an extension
which they are willing to grant. Who
said they were?
During the spring OF 1912, not admit
ting that anything was due the Company
but in order to settle the dispute oyer
payments the Company claimed to be
due, the Canal Users ASH opened ne
gotiations for general extension of pay
ments such AZ had just then been granted
by the Idaho Irrigation Co. to its settlers.
And do you know, the extension was