prevents their being used for any such purpose and renders our last condi- 

 tion worse than the first. We have not, or has Montana, a railroad grant 

 extending along our most desirable streams. We have not, as has New 

 Mexico, Arizona and California, Spanish laud grants whose possession by 

 private individuals opens a field for private enterprises. We have not, as 

 has Nebraska, been able to invite settlers by a rain belt delusion and thus 

 secure the private ownership of the lands to be reclaimed. Because Wyo- 

 ming is unable to evade the provisions of the public land laws her people 

 can not secure any aid from the coffers of capital. 



.While we furnish an engineer to Anzna to expend a million dollars of 

 eastern capital in the reclamation of a Spanish land grant, while we provide 

 the Superintendent of this water division to old Mexico to expend a large 

 sum in the improvement of another laud grant, we are compelled to see our 

 own resources undeveloped, our people look elsewhere for employment, our 

 business enterprises come to naught and all because of laud laws which 

 have no reason or justification for their existence. 



The homestead law as applied to the region for -which it was framed 

 was a beneficent institution. As applied to a region entirely different it is 

 an obstruction to progress, the most effective barrier to securing kornes for 

 the very class it was designed to protect. The principle of the homestead 

 law must be preserved, but it must be a homestead law suited to the arid 

 region. The present homestead law, instead of being a means of keeping 

 homes for settlers, is a means of keeping homes from settlers. The desert 

 law offers no aid whutevei in the diversion of our great rivers. The acreage 

 is too small for the purposes of the dit sh builder; it is too great for the pur- 

 poses of the settler. There is not o le immigrant ia ten thousand who 

 comes to this country to find a home.wao has the means to reclaim and cul- 

 tivate 320 acres of land under irrigation. 



Because the homestead law was a beneficent institution elsewhere, there 

 is a popular distrust and a popular prejudice against any complaint of its 

 operation here, but this distrust is due to lack of investigation of the ques- 

 tion. It is simply because the matter has not been studied that the domain 

 of its operation has been extended. What I wish, and what we must have, 

 is a law which will furnish adequate security for the money spent in the 

 reclamation of these lands, and to do this we must have a law which will 

 prevent speculative or excessive filings, which will limit the filings on land 

 under ditches to the area, which a settler cau cultivate and which he can 

 provide water for. 



I can see no injustice, I can see no hardship in making the laud a basis 

 of credit for the money which reclaims it. I can see no hardship to the 

 settler who occupies that land in requiring as an absolute condition that he 

 shall pay for the expenses thus incurred. I can see no wrong or injustice 

 in permitting the party expending monoy to reclaim this land becoming the 

 owner of it if, after a reasonable time, settlers can not be found to occupy 

 it. A homestead law which would provide such conditions would furnish 

 all the incentive required, all the security required for the reclamation of 

 our arable lands. But until we have some such law, until public sentiment, 

 becomes awakened to this questson, until favorable action can be secured 

 from Congress the greatest resource of this State will run to waste, our 

 lands will lie idle, the cost of living will be excessive, and worst of all our 



