The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1916-05-05

are situate, regardless of whether the
entrymen have or have not fully COM
piled with the additional provisions of
the reclamation act with regard to
cultivation and irrigation, or paid up
their water rights. The county, how
ever. cannot assert any claim against
the interest of the government by rea-
son of the tax proceeding, or sell at
tax sale any interest other than that
of the settler"
Such, in brief, was the decision of
Judge F. S. Dietrich in the United
States court on Saturday in the case
of the United States VS.. Canyon coun-
ty, Idaho, and its officers.
Vast Interests Involved.
The suit was brought to enjoin Can
yon county and its officers from tax
ing lands, or the interests of settlers
therein, in what is known as the Boise
reclamation project, which embraces
about $4,000 acres of land in Canyon,
and Ada counties, Idaho, and Malheur
county, Oregon, upon which approx
mately 100 entrymen are settled in
Canyon county, all of whom, the court
assumes, are interested in having
roads and bridges for their conven-
fence, and schools for the education
of their children.
Land Classification.
Judge Dietrich is his decision d.
vides the lands into two classes: The
first class comprises entries in which
the entrymen have made proof before
the land Office in conformity with the
provisions Of the general homestead
law, but have not yet fully complied
with the additional provisions of the
reclamation act requiring that at least
one-half of the irrigable acreage of
the entry shall be irrigated and re-
claimed.
The other class embraces entries
where the entrymen made proof, not
only of compliance with the general
homestead law, but also of The cult
walton of one-half of the irrigable
acreage, as required by the reclama-
ton act, and to whom what is COM
monty known as a reclamation pat
ent" has been issued, reserving to the
United States prior lien on the land
patented, superior to all other liens or
claims, for the payment of sums due
to the United States in connection
with such lands and water rights.
admittedly. mon the issuance Of
such a patent ;f NOT before" save the
court. 'the entryman NAV exercise
absolute dominion and control over
the land and the water r;obt viii
full nower 70 occunv n mortc,oe 70
use and sell the sane ;" snhiecf 70 The
paramount lien mentioned Tbe n,t.
emf Is held 70 he absolute
The court did not nass rnon tho
regularity of the act Of the corntv
in d;rect;ro The asses
sor to insert before tbe name of s.ch
taxpayer the words "eoI,;tv of" thns
by implication recopn;z;no The exenn.
ton in favor Of the governnent nrp-
ceed;np IN the assnmnt;on tbat ~
county assessed and nrnceed.d .n,;net
only the interest or eomitv Of ne en-.
tryman. xclus;ve az that Is Tho GOV.
eminent ~ " '"0 s0'
IT. a,,o.: 49, -.
me susgesuoh thal ,he assessment
IS Invalid because unaer one OF .he
PROVISIONS Oh the statute ana OF the
pa.en., no ison may noio more than
onG III! M.isaple farm UNI on pi0JeS''
anu .hat tneieiore ehtrylien would De
ulSquannSu ilol,l oeeo!illle purchasers
as poss:o:e sale' IS wtnout SUBSTANCE
III .he opin,ol oi .he court NOT docs
.ne eou,i a.'aSh any welght 10 tne as
ser'ioh .hat the TAX must OF necessity
oe aeeined 70 create a neh superior
10 'ha' vi .ne eoye1 T
7. oe.ue's th.eles!.
IS appalen.; IN the opihion OF he
e0"i H.. in". SEWERS oh Tue hist Iiass
OF Iahus mentioned nave something
tngent interest. upon proof OF COM
Phahce Win the homestead law, the