The Delta independent., 1921-12-09

always have been. why do you urge
the farmers of this valley to seek
such Intervention again?
In the past have. like you. on what
seemed to me sufficient grounds, criti-
cised with considerable fervency the
imperfections of the Reclamation
Service, and either as q consequence
or coincidence Of this criticism some
of these imperfections have been rem
edied. In either case, since they have
ceased to exist, they have ceased to
warrant further criticism.
Certain other faults that together
with. you and many other persons
have most severely criticised, have
turned out to be not 80 much the
fault of the Reclamation Service as
the fault of certain unduly Jealous
promoters of the development Of their
own localities, who have sought the
aid of the Reclamation Service in
such development. In order to secure
this aid they have promised the
Reclamation Service everything on
the part of the settlers, and in order
to secure the cooperation Of the set
tiers they have promised them every
thing on the part of the government.
One of the things that they prom
ised the settler on this project was
that his water would cost only $25 per
acre or less. The settler was of course
deceived, for his water will cost much
more than that; but he was deceived
not by the government OF the United
States. but by the local promoters of
the project. BY the inclusion of this
deception, as a distinct clause, in
their articles of Incorporation, they
gained for it currency and credence
that it would otherwise have been i'm
possible to gain.
grant you that 1t is Inconceivable
that this could have been done with
out the sanction of some representa-
tive of the government. who, we now
know, must have exceeded his author
ity, but 1t was not done by the gov
ernment nor at the governments be-
hest 1t was done by the local in
corporators themselves. have heard
repeat to the point OF WEAKNESS that
they were obliged to obtain permis-
sion to include this clause in their
articles of Incorporation in order to
induce the farmers to pledge their
land for the repayment of the pro-
ject's cost. 1t was they, then. who
deceived the settlers. II would be too
monstrous to suppose that they did
this Intentionally. but since the only
other alternative is to suppose that
they did it through ignorance, 1t is
necessary to suppose that their ignor-
ance was abysmal. No one can read
the Reclamation Act without realizing
that its language is far too ambiguous
to warrant anyone in promising that
the final cost OF water would be in
agreement with the original estimate
of the engineers.
Do you think that those whose mis-
directed zeal has led us into the
morass of blasted hopes and broken
promises in which we now find our
selves should be commissioned to
lead us out? Would It not be better
to let those who must bear the conse-
Quences of their former misplaced
confidence continue to do what they
have lately been doing-choose their
leadership from among those of their
fellow victims who make no false
promises and hold out no false hopes?
You are correct in saying that the
water users who signed the original
contract signed a definite and unQuali-
fed contract that water would cost
not more than $25 per acre. was
one of the signers. You're one Of the
incorporators OF the association with
which made that contract. DO you
want me to insist upon your making
that contract good?
Il used to be q commonplace Of
project matter discussion that we have
not sufficient water for more than
10000 acres. have lately heard so
little OF this threadbare theme that
supposed II had. by overmuch discus
sion. been worn out. Now you bring
the topic up again. and since It trou-
bles you am glad you did. for I am
able to resolve your doubts. am
able to assure you that our most ag-
gressive and untiring protagonist of
this idea that we have not sufficient
water has publicly and officially re-
pudiated It.
At meeting of the directors in
September. 1917. a resolution setting
forth that It was the sense OF the
board that we have not sufficient wa
ter to irrigate more than 10000 acres
was offered for adoption. After some
preliminary dalliance with the idea,
the resolution was resolutely annihi-
lated. wiped out, and expunged. and
the man who made the motion to an
initiate, wipe out and expunge was
f. ID. Catlin of Montrose. The only
roo ann Tint rnn ho noa{vuod n for thfa