The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1924-08-01
CONTRACT NOW IN
WASHINGTON

the time II was prepared by then
The report in the press qIotil
Or. Elwood = adj. commissioner
reclamation. and Senator Borah
having expressed themselves in o
position to the provisions of the co
tract are not borne out by the fact
Neither gentleman made any su,
statement. The report OF self-a
pointed committee representing n
teen water users. composing the men
bers OF the 'insurgcnt" board ar
their legal advisors Is misleading an
wholly inaccurate
Say Report Misleading
The report referring to the term
OF the contract is misleading in thu
II iniimates the contract provides les
relief than IS possible under the Law
The facts are that the relief granite
is the maximum relief possible I'm
der existing law. In support of thi:
attention is called to this provision
OF the Phipps bill granting the re
lief:
The Secretary OF the Interior
is hereby authorized in his dis
erection prior to March |. 1925.
to add such accrued and unpaid
charges OF the land of such water
user or applicant. and to distri-
butte such accumulated charges
equally over each OF the subsc-
quent years. beginning with the
year 1925
1t i apparent tina, the committee
headed by Mr.. Tarr has williully or
resorted to deception when
hey say in discussing the contract
hat:
Such act would most certain
ly defeat both temporary relief
which is hoped TO be secured un-
der the Phipps act through the
Interior Department. and also
permanent relief which is hoped
TO be secured through Congress
at its next session in December.
Can Get Help
One OF the sections in the con-
act is as follows
The association and its men,
bers shall have the benefit of 7
all future legislation enacted by
congress for federal reclamation
projects but nothing herein shall
be construed to limit or deny any
administrative discretion granted
or permitted under such future
legislation.
Further let us refer to the COM
itiee's report to see how consis-
mt IT is. Taking the report sec
IN by section let us consider il.
Sectionl:
II the contract is signed it
would be for the purpose of Sc
curing immediate relief which
can be had without the contract.
There must be either individual APP ,
cation for relief or blanket relief.
the past two years a great deal
criticism was offered to The law
Iich provided only for individual i,
ief and blanket relief can be had !,
y by some written agreement. 4,
,ection2:
No one even thinks he would .
'e able to pay in 1925 accord !,
ling to the contract. therefore. .
he singing of the contract would !,
e the acting OF lie. !.
Based in Law
We do not know who is meant
en- the committee says. mo one ,
ks he would be able to pay in
s. Evidentaly congress thought so y
tins is one of the provisions OF y
act under which any relief of =
kind or nature can be had. II
terms OF relief in the contract n;
bad then It is because the law is st
and the committee should write CO
gress their findings. Apparently 81
gress. when they were consider pr
the relief measure. overlooked the
'mittee headed by Mr.. Tarr. ar
ection g. he
To sign the proposed contract tn
ould give congress ground for is
fusing to grant further relief fe
cause congress would believe at
at we intended to do and could is
what we had agreed to do. ne
he same opposition to Section 3 co
ade that has been made a Section sn
ne faul, being with congress for ha
ing an act that would require nc
individual il he made the appl- tn
IN or the organization if il made bl.
ket application for relief to lie
5 charged in Section 2 and not m:
fault OF the contract which is ne