The twice-a-week Twin Falls times. (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1916-1918, 1918-02-21
Erroneous Statement
Promptly Corrected
Bull Newspaper MiscOnstrues Ruling
OF Auditor Into Reflection on Land
Titles on the SOuthside.

The last issue of the Bull Pioneer
contained a news story in which it
was incorrectly stated that titles to
more than 1000 acres of land in the
Twin Falls Southside tract were
fraudulent. Senator NJ ]. Sweeley at
once wrote to the paper calling atten-
ton to the fact that this was a mis-
construction of the ruling of Auditor
Van Deusan and that the land to which
the report had reference was not held
by any sort of title by anybody. 1t
was Carey Act land to which no water
had been applied and none of it was
homestead land, as the Bull paper un-
derstood. None of the titles on this
tract are fraudulent. The following is
the letter of Mr.. Sweeley
February 10Th, 1918.
Editor Pioneer:
note in your issue of the 18th, on
the front page, the startling headlines
auditor SAYS LAND ENTRIES
ARE FRAUDULENT" coupled with
the statement that More than four
thousand acres of homesteads in
Twin Falls southside tract included in
list of void titles"
a personal way but as the story may
cause uneasiness among land owners
through the fear that their titles may
be open to question l take enough in
terest in it to say that there is abso-
lutely no truth in the statement so
far as it relates to the Southside tract.
More than this, the state auditor has
not reported that any titles under
the Southside system based on either
homestead or Carey Act entries are
fraudulent or open to attack. All he
did so far as this tract is concerned
was to call attention to the fact
which in person, by letter and by suit
I long ago brought to the notice of the
state land board and to the courts
that number of pieces of land, ly-
ing under this canal system, have beer
patented by the United States to the
State of Idaho for which no entries
have been made and for which, al.
though water rights had been decreed
to them, the canal company refuses tC
sell these rights. Because of this sit
uation l have urged, and still urge
that water rights for these lands
should be sold whereby they could be
reclaimed or, else, that the lands be
restored to the United States so that
they would be open to entry under
the public land laws.
Another word of explanation may
be helpful 1t is this:
Under the Carey Act it is not re-
quired that lands be irrigated or en-.
tered by settlers before a patent is
issued by the United States to the
state but such patent may issue
when an ample supply of water is
actually furnished in a substantial
ditch or canal, or by artesian wells OF
reservoirs, to reclaim a particular
tract or tracts of such lands, and by
the express terms of the Act this is
to be done without regard to settle
ment or cultivation"
In accordance with these provision.
the state, several years ago, made
proof to the general government tina
IAN ample supply of water was actual
ly furnished" to reclaim certain lands
Included in the lists are tracts which
have never been entered but to which
the state holds title. While it may BIZ
possible that the United States car
have these lands restored to the pub
lie domain, there can be no question
concerning the validity of the title tC
lands entered and for which patent:
have issued by the state.
Yours very truly,
NJ. ]. SWEELEY.