The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1914-01-06
DIRECTORS REPLY
TO CRITICISMS
Opposition to Management An
swered DeCisve|y
DIFFICULTIES ID OF PRESENT BOARD
OUTLINED BRIEFLY.
Circular of +. R. Hobbs Causes
Director to Don His War
Paint.
Twin Falls, Idaho. Ian Let

irwin Falls, Idaho, Jan. 1st, 1914.
10 the Stockholders of the Twin Falls
Canal Company:
A number of letters, newspaper ar
ucles, and pamphlets have been circu-
lated over the Twin Falls tract with a
view OF influencing the coming cleo
tlon OF the directors of the company.
Most OF the supposed statements of
fact contained in these documents have
been either entirely misstated, or have
been so half-stated as to amount TO
the same thing Some of these mis-
statements have been probably made
intentionally; but, no doubt, a great
many nave been made in the honest
Deilet as to their truth. The stock
holders OF the company should be in
possession OF the real facts when they
are called upon to approve or disap-
prove OF the acts of the present man
agement; and, for that reason, it has
been deemed advisable to submit a
correct statement of the facts relating
to the objections raised.
In a printed circular it has been
charged that the present board of di-
fectors has assisted in the establish
ment OF an experimental farm to as
certain the amount of water needed
upon the tract. This statement is un-
true in this, that, while the present
board has assisted in the establish
ment OF an experimental farm, it was
not primarily for the purposes men
toned. The primary purpose was not
to ascertain the duty of water' but.
to find out the time or times when
water should be applied in order to
secure the best results. Mr.. Don Bark
made his experiments with reference
to the duty of water" on the Twin
Fails tract during the years 1911 and
1917; and any duty of water investiga-
tons secured by the present expert
mental farm would be merely incl
1ental. Moreover, the results of Mr..
barks experiments have been distinct
" favorable to the contention of this
company that the contract duty of wa
.er, to-wit, five-eighths of an inch de-
lvered at the farm, is not more water
han is needed for the proper irriga-
ion OF the lands. Any investigation
made has been made to protect. and
lot to impair, the water duty of the
contract, and such has been the result
II every investigation so made. If |
'ustalns the contention of this COM
)any IN the West case, hereafter re-
erred TO, evidence as to water duty |
must be available for the purpose of |
showing the necessity for five-eights |
nch duty The better and more ac-
'urate evidence in our hands at that |
lme will enable the company to bet
er prepare it's showing Those who |
oppose accurate Investigations and |
observations overlook the fact that the !
upreme court of Idaho has refused |
o recognize guesses; but, insists upon |
.ccurate. definite evidence. The guess
II Mr.. Hobbs might be the better evil |
lence than governmental investiga-
Ion; but the supreme court of Idaho
thinks otherwise. This
ule. the board cannot change if it
you'd, and we believe this company
hould have evidence of its own,-ac-
urate, acceptable by the courts and
nimpeachable,-by which it can show
'henever called. upon to do so, that
he contract right should be protected
nd maintained. AS we have said the
Experimental farm now maintained
'as not primarily for this purpose
he Bark investigations having been
lade in 1911 and 1912 under the direc-
ons OF the government of the United
tates. If we did not believe that these
lvestigations were distinctly favor
Die to the right of this company, it
ould be our view that investigations
lould be made by the company with
'e view, as we have said, of forever
aintaining unimpaired the contract
ghts of the company's stockholders
1t has never been the contention of
e present management that the
Continued on Page p