Lincoln County times. (Jerome, Idaho) 1911-1919, 1913-10-09
ALEXANDER TO TAYLOR
Some Of the Interpretations Of the
Carey Act Manager Corrected.

II there was anything lacking to
substantlate the claim repeatedly
made by the Times that the State
Of Idaho through its former land
boards has shown much deeper in
terest in the welfare of the irrga-
tion companies than il has to the
settlers it has invited to the state.
1t has been supplied by our Carey
Act Manager in a lengthy effusion
which was recently given such ''un-
due publicity" in the two company
organs on the tract.
From the fact that such wide
publicityC) was given to the letter
by its publication in those two or
gans, we deem it unnecessary to re-
produce it in these columns, and
will content ourselves by giving be-
low copy of the letter from the
association, through its secretary to
Mr.. Taylor. in answer to his last
TRADE against the settlers and the
association in particular.
Jerome, Idaho, Sept -. 1913.
Hon 5. b. Taylor,
Manager Carey Act Dept.
Boise, Idaho
Dear Sir: Your letter oil August 18th
in re Patents for the North Side lands
was duly received and but for private
business which has required my undivid-
ed attention should have had an earlier
reply
However, had about concluded that
the incident might close at that without
reply, when TO my establishment your
letter appeared under glaring headlines
In the papers on the tract here that es-
pouse the cause OF the Company in every
issue between them and the settler.
had not published the correspondence
in the matter, but now in sell defense
the Association is practically forced to
give the public the iul details OF this
| controversy over patents and this shall
proceed to do through the medium oil the
| Lincoln County Times"
And now to the reply, you first assert
that ii 90eo of the settlers on the tract
are opposed TO the issuance OF patents at
this time, it is because OF unsound advice
given them.
| This proposition will be answered in
our reply to the balance OF your letter,
and, if we cannot justify our position in
the mind OF any fair, unbiased person.
then we will yield the point.
Second, you take the position that the
State has reclaimed the lands under this
segregation, as is required Of citizens
who enter lands under the Desert-land
Laws
In making final proof on Desert En-
tries, the Regulations Of the Department
require, among other things: THAT the
claimant show that he has made the pre-
liminary filings and taken such other
steps as are required by the laws Of the
State or Territory in which the land il
located, for the purpose Of securing =
right to the use OF sufficient supply Of
water to irrigate successfully all of the
irrigable land embraced in bis entry"
/ You also quote from the contract be-
tween the State and the Federal Govern
ment by which it is provided; That be-
fore the State is entitled to Patent, it
t must show that an ample supply Of water
= has been actually furnished in substsn-
Y tial ditch or canal
I The whole issue turns then upon the
question OF whether or not an ample
supply oi water has been furnished OF
rs the Desert-land LAW specifies, whether
I or not there has been furnished supply
: OF water sufficient to successfully irrigat,
= the lands under this segregation.
Up to this time and until the Jackson
Lake Dam is raised and water mad,
available therefrom, no storage water ha
l. been provided for the tract, and assert
e and conditions are so familiar to you
a that you know that this tract cannot b
successfully irrigated without storag
water; hence the lands have not becl
u reclaimed As required by law and by tn
Is contract and the State is not entitled l.
Sc Patent.
70 But to further substantiate this propo
20 sition, we can cite you the fact that tn
Company has purchased storage waite
for the tract in four OF the five seasons
has attempted to irrigate the lands her
and the Company surely would not hay
he bought and paid for water that was no
needed to properly irrigate the tract.
And further the reports OF the Stat
'o Engineer show this tract to be substanti
p ally storage proposition. At the hear
ing before the Land Board OF which yo
were then member, last September,yo
10 had State Engineer Robson make nu