The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1919-01-10
ALFRED REPLIES
TO JUDGE TRU|TT
Speaker of Last House of Legislature
Denies Intimation of Steal
in Gem District.

Boise, Idaho, January 4, 1919
Under recent date, there was pub
lished a letter from Judge Warren
Truitt relative to the $4,000 appro-
priation made by the last legislature
for the Gem irrigation district, to use
in the purchase of state lands within
it's boundaries.
The judges observations on house
bills Nos. 38l and 1872 are either con-
ceived in the most profound ignorance
both as to the law and the facts, or are
Hunnish in their designs. He charges
that the administration was attempt
ing to steal, not for itself, but for the
benefit of the Gem Irrigation district,
o67O acres of valuable land, for the
reclamation of which the twelfth SEES
sion of the Idaho legislature appro-
priated $14,770.28, and the thirteenth
session appropriated an additional
$40 43207, making a total cash ex-
penditure of SCI, 202.35."
Knows Nothing of Difficulty
| am of the opinion that Judge
Truitt knows nothing about the value
of land in the Gem Irrigation district,
or of the financial difficulties of tho
district which determine the value of
land within its boundaries. | presume
that he will readily admit that the
lands within the district without water
right are not worth 10 cents per acre.
They are, without water. but part of
the sagebrush desert lying along the
south side of the Snake river in Owy-
hee county. Let us briefly examine
into the origin Of the district and how
the state became an interested party.
In 1911, if my memory serve me
we'll, the settlers. together with the
state of Idaho. acting under section
243o of the Revised Codes. formed the
Gem Irrigation district, for the rec
lamation of 10000 acres (using even
numbers) of which the state owned
practically one-third. The district
bonded itself to bear the cost of con-
structing pumping plant, canals.
distributing system. and to purchase
the necessary machinery. These pro-
ceedings were all approved by Friendly
suits. The system and cost was all
according to the best knowledge and
purpose of the time.
States Land Exempt.
The water rights secured and the
system constructed was for the bene-
fit of all lands within the district In
OIuGI W H1dlHtdl1 tlllS SpStCll. WHlSH
is an expensive one, and pay interest
on bonds, ETC.. it is necessary for the
district to levy assessments upon the
land By virtue of the title to one
third of the lands being in the state
the bonds are lien on but two-thirds
of the district. or that portion owned
mostly by homesteaders. The district
cannot enforce the collection of taxes
on state lands by the ordinary process
of sale. hence the appropriation of
SOL, 20235 spoken of by the Judge as
having been expended bv the state in
improving the lands. The only way
this expenditure of the states money
could be said to improve its land is
that it paid part of the taxes levied
by the district against every acre of
land within its boundaries. The money
did not go for the removal of sage
brush or the blowing of the land. but
merely for the purpose of meeting a
just demand of the district. The dis
trict must make the same charge
whether water is used or not, since
the system has to be maintained for
all the lands. The state has little or
no income from its lands within the
district and with the necessarily in
creasing assessments of the district,
the lands have become liability and
not an asset to the state.
The two bills spoken of by the
Judge as being an attempt to loot was
but an honest effort by the state to
dispose of liability and not an asset.
1t is rather strange that man of the
judges experience and knowledge
would accuse whole legislature, as
the vote shows with the exception OF
three persons, of attempting to loot
the state by so open and notorious a
scheme, and then carry the matter
into the supreme court yet for ulti-
mate decision as to the constitution
Atty of the acts under which they at
tempted to loot.
Liability to State.
If the reader thinks these lands are
not in fact liability, permit me to
call your attention to what the state
at the present time is morally and
otherwise obligated to pay the district
if the state retains the lands. The
secretary of the district advised me
that, including the last assessment oil
$ll.70 per acre and not adding pen
allies and interest TO unpaid assess.
ments, the state now owes the distric,
1921, 400.80. Then further consider
the fact that there is no reason to be.
lieve that for several years to come
the district will be able to make q