Yerington times. [volume] (Yerington, Nev.) 1907-1932, 1914-03-07


bear in mind that many applications
for water have been made to the State
Engineer by people living in and out
of Lyon county who have no idea OF
perfecting their right to the water
applied for and the applications are
made simply for the purpose of specu
lation.
10. There is nothing in paragraph
II that provides that the water turned
out of the reservoir is to be charged
for. 1t clearly provides that it shall
go to the stockholders of the Com
pany owning and constructing the res
ervoir and with no provision for any
charge for the water
II. Paragraph Is you have miscon-
strued altogether. The paragraph pro-
vides that nothing in the stipulation
shall be deemed an agreement by any
party to purchase said shares, but
only an option to purchase the same /;
nor shall it be deemed an agreement
to build said reservoir, but only an
option to do so if the party is willing
and desires to subscribe said stock.
Hence, you will observe that not a
party to the stipulation has bound
himself in any way to take any stock
in the building or to build the reser-
voir or to pay one dollar towards the
construction.
II. Your criticism that they would
have to discharge the man selected
to measure the water every week and
hire a new man to prevent the inter
ested parties from buying" him is out
of place. If you had any experience
in Nevada at all you would know that
few men can be bought" The buy
ing" of men may be your experience in
the country where you have lived
heretofore, but you will get over that
notion after you have lived in Ne
vada short time The great majority
of men in Nevada are not open to a
price" and cannot be bought" by
yourself or anyone else.
Is. Your criticism in paragraph 10
is out of point. No honest or honor
able man would object to protecting
the Simpson Companys right to the
waters reservoired on Poor Creek dur
ing the winter time or during time
when all other appropriations have
been supplied.
Ia. We have no objection to your
opinion or feeling toward the Hickey
interest in the Pacific Livestock Com
pany or with what they had toward
one another. so long as they let the
interest of other defendants alone. and
if they can make two dollars instead of
one it is their business and not onrs
so long as they do not Interfere with
the rights or property of our clients.
IS. The answer to your Question
No. | is easy. No one gets any ex-
ira water All of the defendants get
six-tenths of an inch per acre, the Ma
son Ranch included. The defendants
who live at the upper end of Mason
and Smith Valley on gravelly lands
and the Antelope Valley Land & Cat
tie Co. get eight-tenths of an inch per
acre In other words. they obtain
through this agreement just what they
appropriated many years ago and have
been using for many years. So they
do not get any extra water at all. They
get simply that which they have APP
they are entitled to. because if it is
not given to them in this agreement
the United States District Court will
give that much water to them.
The answer to your Question No
2 is, that no party to this suit pays
for the water other than the expense
of getting it out of the river.
The answer to your Question No
3 is. that the Antelope Vallev Land 4
Cattle Co. gets the seventy-tive thou
sand dollars, providing they sell. Our
clients are not concerned in that as
they have not agreed to buy.
In Question No. you ask "Who
will get the Alkali Swamp" Your
answer is, THE Common People,
which you knew was not true when
you penned it. You know. if you know
anything about it. that that Alkali
Lake belongs to the Antelope Val
ley Land & Cattle Co. and the Gov
ernment of the United States. and the
common people, as you term them, oil
Lyon county have never agreed to buy
an acre of it.
In Question No. you ask "Who
will pay the litigation against the U
S. Government to remove the perman-
ent injunction against the use of Al
kali Lake as a reservoir ?" Your an
swer is The Common People" You
knew that answer was not true when
you wrote it, as not one OF the defend
ants involved in the present litigation
has ever agreed to buy any portion
of it or has agreed to pay any portion
of the expense of removing the per
manent Injunction except I. b. Hickey
and his successor, in which our clients
are not interested and have not agreed
to contribute cent toward that liti-
cation.
Your last Question is who's loon
ey now?" Your answer is whoever
signs this legally worded document
Your criticism shows that you have
no interest in the litigation and that
you know nothing about it. The de
PENDANTS in this water suit after liti
eating more than thirteen years with
Miller & Lux and its successors and
with T. B. Hickey and his successors
found an opportunity to obtain then
water rights and have them settled by
a decree in the District Court of the
United States for the District of Ne
vada without further litigation and
without further expense, and after
many days of consultation prepared
the agreement to which you allude
LaaD;,r in yieW the main feature