The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1916-08-01
MR.. BARKER S ANSWER.
The Question


In interview published in THE TIMES for July GOTH NJ
George Barker secretary of speaking conditions
Land Board to compel the to live up to the of the Co
tract but the Land Board do that since it has
In the same issue THE TIMES requested Mr. Barker to make
definite statement certain questions which repea
below:
''Do you mean Mr. Barker that the State of Idaho
into with irrigation companies for the
reclamation OF arid lands upon the success OF which
ventures depends the prosperity and happiness Of hun
dreds Of families and DOES o NOT RESERVE Any
CONTRACTSq
.'As a matter of fact Mr. Barker has the State ever
ATTEMPTED to enforce the contract with the promo
of the Salmon river project?
cor has the State in any instance failed hereto
fore in an ATTEMPT to enforce the provisions OF sim
liar contracts
tonhing admission and that the people throughout the
will be very interested in knowing what grounds
Mr. Bankers Reply.
The following statement from Mr. Barker has been received
follows i'll full:
In an editorial in your of July 2Oth under
the caption, Mr. Barler-Please Answer you say
stated to your reporter concerning the SalmonTwin
Falls project that the settlers the Salmon project
the land board to compel the company to live up
the of the contract, but that the land board
cannot do that since it has no power to make the com
81 will answer 1 am that you print
get something on a Republican official.
Governor Alexander and | agree upon this propo-
sion so | take it there be political capital to be
made out of it. We went pretty well over the tract
Its problem is well known to the Land Board. The
has sold land than it has water to irri
gate Two courses shape themselves and only two:
either the settlers must submit to increased price in their
"a feet to permit the
company to pay for the eliminaons; the
declare the of the company forfeited and in
the attorney general to for the appointment
of a receiver. The may hold that the company
well able conduct the affairs of the and
furnish such is available could a receiver
The may hold that receiver shall be appointed
then the project will through the usual sinuous
ways of a receivership with the company buying in the
certificates the end to protect its original investment
81 hope that the company has much invested that
of the recent court decision which
makes impossible for it any returns from its
until it furnishes the contract amount of water
settlers, will be able sell bonds in sufficient
amount 10 pay for the eminations In my opinion that
will be result voted for the motion which brought
up in the Oakley tract and believe this court
will result final solving of the Salmon prob
lem | am ready always have been ready to help
settlers of the Salmon and Of the other tracts
which not receiving the amount of water IN their
contracts Alexander any other member Of
board will tell you that have been friend Of
his battle for his rights do not want to
take any stand which may further embarrass the set
tier
When the proposition presents itself where
ntellgently % the settlers advantage Sal
l taking my dope from EDITORS viewpoint,
my conclusions of the best way to meet
the issue and for the Salmon settlers the amount
of they agreed to pay for
should be Mr. Barker
the inquiries presented This think very fairly
done from the statement submitted.
First: The State of Idaho did nOtwithandn
contrary of enforcing its
Of