Arizona sentinel and Yuma weekly examiner., 1913-08-07
IRRIGATION FARMER
 Is A BUSINESS MAN

One of the best articles bearing GI the very core of the Yuma problem came to the Examiner desk today. l is we'll worth the serious thought O. every business man on the Yuma project who is interested in removing the limitations that now retard tht rapid growth of this section.
 The letter of our correspondent, whC is Mankato attorney, follows:
 Special Correspondence)
 Editor, The Yuma Daily Examiner
 Yuma, Arizona.
 Dear Sir
 Uuon the suggestion of MT. Wad dell, am sending you copy of lette' I have recently written to the Secre tary of the Interior, with the hope that some good may come of it. When the reclamation act was drafted, the farmers were anxious to so formulate the law as to insure development ol the different projects by actual farm ing. It was thought that the only way in which this could be accom- plished was to limit the acreage which any one person, company or corporation could hold under a project. This limitation was made effective indirect ly, but limiting the number of acres f4 sah hn any one person, company or corpora tion. Actual residence, finally fixed within fifty miles of the land, was an other requirement. of the law and regulations
 It seems to me that when the acre age was limited by Imitation of wat CT to be served to any one person, company or corporation, the farmers of this law lost sight of the fact that development of lands under a recla- nation project, is vastly different from development in humid distlict.
 The first essential in the develop ment in any new agricultural district is a liberal land credit. It is much more essential under a reclamation project, where the first cost of the land is large, where annual payments must be made to the government, and where considerable capital or credit must be on hand to carry on the actual business of farming. Returns are larger than in humid districts, but much more ready money or credit is needed Farming under these pro jects becomes an intense business. The farmer under irrigation has a real business to look after, the same as large merchant has.
 Now, the money individuals, botl residents and non-residents, or the money of Loan & Trust Company pr State Bank, might look ever so long ingly toward mortgage investments in lands under the projects, but the in vestment is absolutely blocked by the
 
 There is one exception to this resident under the project would be justified in making a loan on an acre age no larger than the acreage limited to one person, and this would be true only in case he owned no land him self under the project, because h. wolud not be justified in taking tn chance of being forced to foreclose and thus acquire additional acreage. Resident money would not be justified in making any loan, because water will not be served to any one livino more than fifty miles from the land to be served.
 That is the law, it seems, though do not know whether it is strictly en forced. Nevertheless, we must be governed by the law, and by what MIGHT be done under it when we consider these investments. The farmer under the project is the one who suffers most by reason of these limitations. What real difference does it make whether your farm is only forty acres or one thousand acres, as long as yau are able to farm well, when we once realize that the best results can only be obtained by an unlimited and unhampered lana credit?
 These fundamental considerations might be elaborated indefinitely. bu 1t seems unnecessary. The propo- sitions, in my opinion, are perfectly plain.
 If non-residents were also permit. ted to own lands under the law. they would be obliged to improved to i'm. prove and farm them, and the pro Ject community would receive the benefit.
 Whether these considerations have been urged upon the department and your representatives in congress, 1 am not aware. But, I am firmly o the opinion that the fundamental fault is in the limitations, and that