Arizona republican., 1914-09-07

penditures made on the Salt River Project by the
United States Reclamation Service and the Salt
River Valley Water Users Association.
In this advertisement reference is made to the
report of the so-called investigation committee
which held what was purported to be investiga-
ton OF tile expenditures made or the Salt River
Project by the IT, s. Reclamation Service and great
stress has been laid the difference in cost be-
tween what has been assumed to have been the
ESTIMATED COST of construction of the project
and the final COST and the charge is made that this
difference represents Gloss, due clearly to the in
competence of the officials of the Reclamation Ser
vice. =, Il
This report was made from ex parte evidence, and
after being made to congress was disregarded.
Now, what are the facts?
The Reclamation Act does not, as is stated in that
report, and copied in this advertisement, Limit
the amount of money which the government can col
lect from the land owners and the entrymen to the
estimated cost of construction and require that this
estimated cost shall be apportioned equitably'
Section of the act states:
''The said charges shall be determined with view
of returning to the Reclamation fund the estimated
cost of construction of the project and shall be ap
portioned equitably"
You will note that no reference is made to what
cost is referred to, whether original or final.
And there is no warrant in this committees
drawing this conclusion, Mr.. Ling, than there is
for him to draw the conclusion, as he did in his
speech that the Salt River Valley Water Users As
sociation has no warrant in law.
This statement was made evidently to discredit
the most helpful association in the valley and to
catch the vote of the unwary.
Section 6 Of the Reclamation Act specifically
ton and under such rules and regulations as may be
acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior"
Specific enough, is it not?
So should Mr.. Ling as he says stake his reputa-
ton lawyer the fact that the association has
warrant in law, that reputation would hang by
slender thread than is supporting at the pres
ent time his ability to tell the truth.
You will note that the figure used as the estimat
ed cost of the project is taken from the report to the
congress by the Secretary of the Interior in 1905
and is given as S385O,000 which is entirely
rect statement but in the report of this investiga
ton committee and in this advertisement, the state
ment is clearly made that the difference between
this amount expended represents clear loss to the
government, and statement as to what this differ
ence covered is wilfully avoided
AS is borne out by statement after statement in
the press, in speeches by prominent in the val
ley, making testimony submitted to that committee.
and will be by reference to the reports of the
Reclamation Service for 1905, that estimate covered
only the cost Of the Roosevelt Dam, the small power
plant that to be used in its construction and did
not include the many large items that were added
subsequent to that report
These being the Granite Reef Dam, the power de-
velopment, the Roosevelt road, the purchase and
enlargement of the old and the construction Of the
new canal systems on both sides Of the river
The Reclamation Record of November 1913 pub
ished the cost of these features up to September &c.
1913, which are as follows:
Mar