Shoshone journal. [volume] (Shoshone, Idaho) 1884-1931, 1913-05-23
IMPORTANT RULING
ON ENTRIES OF
DESERT LAND.
YRECEDENTS LAID DOWN IN
OTHER DECISIONS HELD MOI
TO COVER CASE.

the register anu IetriFcl VI S''
local United States land Office III
decision handed down Saturday n
the contest Of William A. EgbeIf
against Ernest s. Bladen, the local
officials holding that The rule es-
tablished in preceding decisions by
other offices does not apply IN TINS
case.
Bladen's desert entry made On
July IS, 1911, was No. 0ii2O2. and
Mr.. Ebert in contesting said:
When said desert entry filling
was made, great portion Of said
land was not desert in character
but was in high state of cultiva-
ton and had been for perioo.
of five years and still is; that about
IA acres was sown to alfalfa and
was irrigated
The decision said:
Finding that half or more than
half of the subdivision is irrlgable,
and that since only small proper
ton of the irrigable area of each
had been reclaimed before the en-
try was made, the rule enumerated
10 other decisions does not apply.
The contest accordingly IS dismissed
Theory of Contest 0verthroWn.
This contestant goes upon the
theory that if any portion OF a
tract of land shall have been
reclaimed. then that tract shall
not be subject to entry under the
desert land law" says the decision.
There are numerous decisions TO
the effect that land which has been
reclaimed or which has been par
TALLY reclaimed, is not longer sub
iect to entry under the desert land
law. Is is necessary. though to
examine these decisions carefully
TO determine whether or not they
apply to this case
The decision then quotes from
the opinions handed down by other
land offices in similar cases, where
The decisions were that the entry
should be concealed in part because
that part had been reclaimed pre-
vious to the entry. The local de-
cision then continues:
1T is clear from the foregoing
that subdivisions which have been
reclaimed, or PARTIALLY reclaimed
are not subject to desert land entry,
but the question with which we
are now confronted is whether a
subdivision, any portion of which
has been reclaimed, is subject to
entry under the desert land law
Holding of Officials.
THE language used in the deci-
sions from which we have quoted
would seem upon casual considera-
ton to sustain the theory that
is no longer subject to
entry under the desert land act if
any portion of that subdivision
shall have been reclaimed. 1t viii
be observed, however, that in all of
those cases practically ALL of the
or subdivisions held for
had been reclaimed. |
We therefore feel justified in con-
GLIDING that the decisions did not
intend to lay down the rule that
previous reclamation of any small 4
portion Of a subdivision would |
make the subdivision uncomfortable
under the desert land law.
I'VE do not think it would be
held that if any entryman through !
mistake had plowed up, irrigated |
and reclaimed half an acre or an
acre of land adjoining his own, !
that such reclamation would remoNa
the entire subdivision Of land on
which this reclamation had been
effected, from entry under the
desert land act. If an error as to
one acre could thus be overlooked,
then an error as to five or six
acres could be overlooked.
Limit is Necessary.
There must be some limit with |
respect to the amount Of land re-
claimed in any subdivision. If one
acre of the 10 acres had been re-
claimed in any manner, and all the
remaining portion OF that subdivis-
ion were irrigable, we think il per-
fectly plain that the rule laid
down in those decisions would not
apply, but that the subdivision
could be entered and reclaimed
under this law. Were only half or
two-thirds of a subdivision irrig
able, then the proof of reelama-
ion of small proportion of that
rrigable area, should not, in cur
inhibit entry Of the sub