The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1919-01-07

trict, to use in the purchase of stat
lands within its boundaries. The let
ter is preceded by large headline
More Information about that $4,000
Land Deal" In fairness to the publ
and the good citizens of the Gem Irri
cation District, will you kindly Civ,
this reply communication the sam,
prominence you gave the Judges let
ter?
He charges that the administration
was attempting to steal, not for it.
self, but for the benefit of the Gem
Irrigation District, 9,670 acres Of
valuable land, for the reclamation
of which the 18th session of the
Idaho legislature appropriated $14,-
| 770.28, and the 18th session appropri-
ated an additional 46,432.07, making
total cash expenditure of $61 ,202.35.
am of the opinion that Judge
Truitt knows nothing about the value
of land in the Gem Irrigation Dis
trict, or of the financial difficulties
of the district which determine the
value of land within its boundaries.
| presume that he will readily admit
that the lands within the district with
out water right are not worth 10c
per acre. They are, without water,
but part of the sagebrush desert
lying along the south side of the
Snake river in Owyhee county. Let
US briefly examine into the origin of
the district and how the state became
an interested party.
In 1911, if my memory serves me
right, the settlers, together with the
state of Idaho, acting under Section
2439 of the Revised Codes, formed the
Gem Irrigation District for the rec
lamation of 10000 acres (using even
numbersl, of which the state owned
practically one-third. The district
bonded itself to bear the cost of con-
structing pumping plant, canals, a
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.
The water rights secured and the
system constructed was for the bene-
fit of all lands within the district. In
order to maintain this system, which
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
by mostly homesteaders. The district
cannot enforce the collection of taxes
on state lands by the ordinary process
Of sale. hence the appropriation of
S61, 202.35 spoken of by the Judge as
having been expended by the state in
the lands. The only way
his expenditure of the states money
could be said to improve it's land Is
hat it paid part of the taxes levied
~ the district against every acre of
and within it's boundaries. The money
lid not go for the removal of sage
rush or the blowing of the land, but
merely for the purpose of meeting a
ust demand of the district. The dis
riot must make the same charge
whether water is used or not, since
he system has to be maintained for
IL the lands. The state has little
T NJ income from its lands within
he district, and with the necessarily
Increasing assessment of the district,
he lands have become liability and
ct an asset to the state. The two
ills spoken of by the Judge as being
n attempt to loot was but an honest
fort by the state to dispose of a
ability and not an asset. 1t is rather
TRANCE that man of the Judges
Experience and knowledge would ac-
use whole legislature, as the vote
hows with the exception of three per-
ons, of attempting to loot the state
y so open and notorious a scheme,
nd then carry the matter into the
lpreme court, yet for ultimate de-
sion as to the constitutionality of
e acts under which they attempted
, loot. If the reader thinks these
nds are not in fact liability, permit
lie to call your attention to what the
ate at the present time is morally
nd Otherwise obliged to pay the dis
let if the state retains the lands.
he secretary of the district advised
e that, including the last assessment
$11.70 per acre and not adding
snalties and interest to unpaid as
the state now owes the dis
let $244, 400.80. Then further con-
der the fact that there is no reason
believe that for several years to
me the district will be able to make
lower assessment than that made
r the present year of $11.70 per
re- With the state receiving little
nothing from the lands and adding
Ito year with assessments there
, how will it ever be able to get any
mere near the principle expended,
It considering the interest on the
Mount invested? Many times bust
IS men conclude that they have
ade a bad deal and the sooner they
arge the item off Of their books,
e better off they are. Is it not
ct that the state would be better
to charge this item off its books,
an to attempt to pay indefinitely
on lands which it cannot cultivate?
Is the Judge not aware that the
ance committee of the house, COM
sed of such men as Beacher Hitch
* of Standpoint, Peter johnson of
ackfoot, and D. L. Young of Boise,
rsonally inspected the lands within
, Gem Irrigation District and spent
lsiderable time in an effort to de-
e possible way to relieve the
tie of this liability; that after such
estigation, the finance committee
reported that House Bill
!. 1872 do pass. This is the bill
ich gave the district power to pur-
lse The same committee unani-
,,c1x, ~o,oor+oJ +bo% House. Dill No