The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1916-08-15
SALMON HEARING
GENERATES HEAT
Haga Says Land Board Is Victim
of Political BIaCkmdiI
GOVERNOR DEMANDS PROOF-AT-
TORNEY FAILS TO FURNISH 1T.
Governor Says B0ndhOlders Failed to
Protect Their nterests-BOnd At
tOrney Makes Important Admission.

TUESDAY , p. m.-Special Dispatch)
Salmon tract matters are occupying
the attention of the state land board
at Boise today The hearing COM
menced at ten o'clock this morning, o.
o. Haga presenting the company's
side of the situation from a written
statement Mr.. Haga contended that
the petition forwarded by the settlers
represented only about one-third of
the entrymen, fact which the set
tiers conceded, inasmuch as no effort
was made to reach nonresident en-
trymen in the short time available,
which group comprises nearly two
thirds of the original entrymen. Mr.
Haga contended that only twenty per
cent. of those who signed the petition
were original entrymen on the pro-
ject, and that the others had come to
the project later and purchased land
for speculation, being fully acquaint-
ed with the conditions that existed
Mr. Haga stated that the settlers had
repeatedly refused suggestions for the
arbitration of these differences with
the company, an assertion that will
be explained and warmly disputed
when the settlers time to be heard
comes
1t was pointed out by the company's
attorneys that the land board action
in the Rayl case, in ordering the COM
pany to deliver water for land which
Mr.. Rayl had leased from the state,
was not consistent with the boards
present attitude Mr. Haga stated
that the present attitude of the board
was the result of political blackmail
on the part of certain newspaper,
and also on the part of officials of
the settlers organization.
Governor Alexander interrupted Mr..
Haga at this point and demanded that
the company's council be specific and
state just whom he meant. Mr.. Haga
declined to go into details. The gov
ernor Immediately asked to have Mr..
Haga's remarks stricken from the
records of the meeting, which was
done.
Mr. Haga continued. pleading for
mercy for the bondholders whom he
claimed had come into the possession
of the project innocently. He says
there were SS4 small investors. one
half of whom were women.
Members of the land board inter
rupted Mr. Haga quite freely, and
from their pointed questions it was
obvious that Mr.. Haga was not sue
ceeding in putting anything over with
out an explanation at every turn.
By the time Mr. Haga had conclud-
4 IL. A for~
der had become quite heated, and TAX
ing the floor, told Mr.. Haga that the
company had contracted to reclaim
the Salmon. project, which had not
been done, and that for his part he
was going to see that it was done be-
fore the matter was concluded. He
STATED that the bondholders had not
purchased the bonds on the chance of
a successful reclamation of the Sal
mon project, but under the guarantee
of the American Guaranty and Wa
ter Works company, which concern
he said had gone through bankruptcy
which was not the fault of the settlers
on the Salmon tract, and that the
bondholders should have looked after
their interests in that instance for re-
endorsement of the funds advanced
and not to the settlers on the Salmon
tract. In regard to the Rayl case
Governor Alexander said he made q
mistake and freely admitted it, and
said that he had been misled by the
companys attitude.
Attorney for the company went on
record during the hearing to the ef-
feet that the ownership of the dam
and canal system rests with the set
tiers, through the Salmon River Canal
company, of which the settlers hold
all the stock. This important admis-
sion is in line with the contention oi
THE TIMES. which has repeatedly in
sisted that the only equities held by
the promoters or the bondholders
were the liens from the lands of the
settlers which were contingent upor
the fulfillment of the conditions ol
the contract. 1t is pointed out tha
in consequence of this admission, {
receivership proceedings or the can
collation. of the contract, would no
place the company in control of the
irrigation system, but would vest the
management of the system in the set
tiers themselves. This particular
point is a matter over which consid
cradle litigation may be expected in
the event the land board brings ac
ton under the Carey act laws of the
state to oust the company.