The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1916-03-03
Public Forum
LAND BOARD DECISION
A PAINFUL SURPRISE

The decision of the state land
board concerning the Salmon tract re-
Gently made comes to us poor settlers
on the Salmon tract as a painful sur
prise, as we were counting on the
nice promises made by some of the
members of the state land board in
its meeting at HOLSTER some time
ago. We will never forget the words
spoken by Attorney General Peterson,
how blue he felt because of the poor
circumstances we were in, and how
he could understand how we felt for
he himself had been born on a home
stead and had to wear shabby clothes
in his boyhood, ! tell you he does
not have to wear them any more. We
are not past that stage yet. l still
remember, myself, how the governor
smiled an assured smile and turned
to the other members of the board
when he declined to call special
meeting of the legislature to take up
this matter on request of one of the
settlers He said he would have no
special meeting unless there came
great calamity because such a meet
ing would cost the state about $4,000
The money could be saved and he
the settlers. If he could not agree
with Mr. Edwards, the bondholders
representative, the board would act
They had something better in store
for the poor settlers. Yes, a feeling of
relief swept over us poor victims of
cOwardice or cold-blooded Indifference
at that ver-to-be-forgotten meeting
at HOLSTER We were not slow to
bring the glad tidings to our homes,
to tell our wives and children, who
had suffered with us for so long. We
told them our troubles would be over
soon, believing eagerly, as poor, hon
est, working, supplemented
farmers generally do. We could not
believe then that they were peddlng
hot air to us. We took their words
seriously.
Can any fair-minded person blame
us for taking it for granted that the
state of Idaho never would go back
on its pledge made to the poor. re-
spected settlers on its irrigation pro-
| jects? How cruelty did the state of
Idaho forsake us, by unavoidable mis-
takes. Read the decision of the
board. Are they really unavoidable?
l should say not,
Why didn't the state of Idaho COM
pei the different companies to COM
plete the works or drive them out and
take matters in their own hands? The
state of Idaho was behind this propo-
sition, and it could not fail-and truly,
they stayed behind and never came
out to the front to help the poor set
tiers, her own people.
The decision reads that the settlers
enter into a new contract reducing
the water duty to 226 acre feet. The
company is to waive interest on all
deferred payments after Judge Diet
rich declared that the company could
not collect interest nor foreclose.
That period of five years in which
we do not have to make payments.
that extension of time to pay for the
land, does not blind us to the fact that
If we agree with the decision made by
the board we will pay over 500 for
our land before every nickel is paid
up for the land, although | believe
that many are willing to pay $40. not
withstanding the reduced duty of wa
ter and convinced as we are that we
really stood more loss than the ex-
pense to cut down the tract amounts
to, provided we drop our damage suits.
OF course the faith we once had in
the state land board is gone, and un-
less they reconsider their decision and
show that they really want to help us
in such case I would take back what
have said, but it is useless to expect
such noble action; and therefore we
appeal to the voters, men and women,
to help US next election, and ! am
sure you honest people of the great,
beautiful state of Idaho will respond
to our call for help as you responded
so nobly to the call of the starving
Belgians. SAM LAKO.
Amsterdam, Idaho.