Imperial Valley press., 1923-05-04


The page is filled with such mis-statements and
he assertion is made here without fear of honest
contradiction that the Mexican land owners owe
he irrigation district, since its beginning,
i 100000 as their reasonable share for the
support of the district. The statement is further
made here that right at this moment the Colorado
River Land co. is in default on contract with
he Imperial Irrigation district in the sum Of
40,9640O said contract being dated October Goth,
921, signed by The Colorado River Land Co., per
J. F. Brandt, vice president, and by the Imperial
irrigation District, per j. S. Nickerson, president,
md F. H. McIver, secretary.
The statement is further made that at the
present time the Mexican land owners are using
heir full so per cent of the irrigation water which
lines in the past done the same thing.
The yelled threats of impending
suits by the Mexican land owners for
alleged seepage of Mexican lands are ap-
parent throughout this page advertise
ment which seeks to flaunt into the faces
of Red Blooded Americans the intimidat-
ing methods that are expected to be used
in the future as they have been in the
past. This feature of the advertisement
will not be answered now but space is re-
quired to show the fallacy of every peril
nent statement made by Clark and Ali-
son.
Allison, in his letter. speaks of "po-
litical costs, travelling expenses, ETC., il
legally expended during the past four
years to deprive Mexico of its water
This is an untrue assertion. No CAM
paign has ever been conducted, (by this
or the former irrigation district board
whose actions have been considered as
constantly uphOlding the Mexican in
terests) to deprive Mexico of it's water.
No such thing has ever been suggested
by the irrigation district board nor is
there any material element on the Ame-
rican side desirOus of depriving Mexico
of it's water. If Allison refers to the
campaign for the Swing Johnson bill,
readers of the advertisement know as
well as Allison that this bill will protect
Mexican lands from flood menace the
same as it will American lands.
Referring to the Allison statement that
100000 had been expended on the district levees.
Allison can only mean what his company spent
n the Saiz levee it there is any basis whatever
or his statement. That levee was abandoned
wo years ago and the Mexican land owners Off
tally notified by the district. The Pescadero cut
md other protective measures were arranged
or to take it's place. Alison's company was so
lotified, after which his company then proceeded
o spend some money on the Saiz levee to reclaim
heir own Mexican lands. This was not of one
ollar's benefit to Americans and never a drop
f water has been against it since it was abandon
a long before the Mexican interests sought to
pend their money on it. They have now, reclaim
d that land and can force the American farmers
o deliver water to it. Allisons first statement
vas that they spent $4,000, then he raised it to
10000 and now he has jumped it to $150,000, al
hough not penny has been spent since his
10000 statement was made.
Allison's entire theory and contention of the
ayment by Mexico of it's share of funds for the
naintanance of the district is based on the wrong
OundatiOn. He attempts to use an acreage basis
n comparing the payments by Mexico and by
Americans to show that his company has paid it's
hare and a little over
Allison has based all his figures on what he
laims to be the number of acres on the Mexican
ide and the number on the American side, but
here is no way for Americans to know accurately
What the Mexican acreage is and the figures sup
lied by Allison are not believed to be correct
lis whose argument being based OH acreage it
alls of it's own weight.
The proper method is so per cent
basis for both sides because the Ameri-
VerificatiOn of any of the above statements
StyxH L. ~~~~gs-