THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



45 



and, which a federal court, by recent decision, has 

 given them legal grounds to expect, or does the 

 Governor intend his reference to those citizens ot 

 the State and to that portion of the press who, 

 from motives of public policy or principle, have like- 

 wise condemned the "Lost River'' fiasco and who 

 have held up to the State its paramount duty to 

 right the wrongs of the entrymen at whatever 

 cost? Personally, I know nothing of the "politics" 

 of the State as the word is generally understood, 

 and would consider it bad taste to inject myself into 

 such, but no entryman who takes an intelligent in- 

 terest in the subject can be blind to the fact thai 

 the demand upon the part of the people and press 

 of Idaho itself, for full reparation has been growing 

 more insistent day by day. Lest anyone should be 

 tempted to regard this as "poetic license" and to 

 show that my own often-repeated views as to the 

 State's moral liability regardless of any "saving 

 clause" in the statutes, were shared by both 

 classes let me quote a few of numerous instances. 

 The conservative Idaho Statesman (October 25, 

 1912), under caption "Big Lost River Settlers Get 

 Attention" has this to say : Quoting a letter from 

 Mr. Benjamin P. Shawhan of the Carey Act Land 

 Department (in part) : "There are a number of 

 entrymen who desire such use" (of the water as 

 previously discussed) "while the laws protect the 

 State from responsibility, it can not, in my opinion, 

 be relieved from the moral obligation to use every 

 endeavor to protect those who have bought land 

 from the State under the Carey Act and who relied 

 upon it for a proper supervision which they had 

 some reason, at least, to believe was a protection." 

 Lincoln County Times (November 13), re- 

 ferring to the Governor's letter of November 5 to 

 the receiver (for which I wish to afford him full 

 credit and approbation) : "We are glad to see the 

 Governor acknowledge that the State has, at least, 

 a moral obligation to the settlers it has brought 

 here, and upon the success of the settlers depends 

 the ultimate success of every Carey Act project 

 in the State. This has always been the contention 

 of the Times and if former Land Boards had shown 

 a little more interest in the settlers and less atten- 

 tion given to the appeals of the irrigation companies, 

 Carey Act Projects of Idaho would not be looked 

 upon with distrust as they are today by the people 

 of the east." Statesman again commenting upon 

 the Governor's letters (in part) : "The responsi- 

 bility of the contractor's bond would then be 

 brought into question, raising a point that goes clear 

 to the heart of our Carey Act plan and which many 

 regard as one of its weakest features inadequate 

 protection to the settlers in case of failure after the 

 first payment has been made." These cover the 

 very points for which I have contended for years 

 publicly and privately ; the legislators of 'the State 

 can hardly plead lack of information upon this point. 

 If the statement contained in the Capital News of 

 August 21 (which journal appears to have taken the 

 initiative in the present 'agitation') be correct, the 

 Governor has expressed himself emphatically as 

 being in accord with these views. It is needless to 

 go further along these lines of argument. But what 

 shall be said of the attitude of mind implied by the 

 use of the term "unfortunate business situation?" 

 Can the Governor reconcile this conception of the 



matter with his public utterances indicating his ad- 

 herence to a doctrine directly at variance with this 

 thought? A "business situation." The events of 

 recent years have brought about a newer and better 

 conception of the relation of States and Nation to- 

 wards public land and water resources. It is not 

 occupying too advanced ground to say that the "busi- 

 ness" conceptions, are responsible, almost entirely, 

 for the lamentable crash of the irrigation campaign 

 of a few short years ago the reverberations of 

 which still resound in the ears of the people. That 

 reclamation, down to a certain point, is essentially 

 a Government function, is becoming more evident 

 daily, to how large an extent to be effected by the 

 States, through Carey Act or "district" laws, will 

 depend upon the alacrity of the States, themselves, 

 to meet the demands of the situation. Truly, I must 

 regard the Governor's characterization as a remark- 

 ably unfortunate one. The Governor sets forth, as 

 ground for failure to bring suit against the "Con- 

 struction Bond," the fact that the Federal Appel- 

 late Court had withheld its long-expected decision 

 in the Corey Brothers' suit. Happily, as I write, 

 this obstacle has been removed and nothing short of 

 an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court should 

 interfere in this direction now. I will not say that 

 the contention of His Excellency, at the time of this 

 writing, was not well founded, for I have no views 

 as to the legal merits of that problem worth ex- 

 pounding. It is of interest to note, in this connec- 

 tion, however, that there has existed in Idaho, more 

 than qne view upon this matter and that the State 

 did not put the question to the test by bringing ac- 

 tion. Instead, it was left to one of the entrymen (a 

 woman, in this case) to bring suit against the bond, 

 upon her own initiative and the attorneys retained 

 by her did not appear to entertain the views ad- 

 vanced by the Governor. This information was con- 

 veyed in the Capital News of October 23d. It is 

 far from my desire to distort matters or to assume 

 a prejudiced attitude, but the fact remains that the 

 Governor, according to the files of the Statesman 

 in my possession, did not address his famous "Get 

 Busy or Get Out" letter (I am quoting the head- 

 lines of an Idaho paper) to Receiver Clinton until 

 November 5th subsequent to action of Hazel Sauve 

 (entrywoman) and some time prior to the decision 

 of the Federal Appellate Court. I trust the Gover- 

 nor will advance a sufficient reason for failure to 

 adopt this aggressive attitude sooner. It would be 

 useless to refer to the subject at all, but since His 

 Excellency has seen fit to charge me with "utter 

 unfairness" I will be "fair" enough to call his atten- 

 tion to this matter of some importance, when viewed 

 from this distance. Back of what may appear like 

 a hair-splitting contention, what about the ethics of 

 the entire matter? What can the State officials 

 expect of entrymen who see their investment lost in 

 a shadowy enterprise and from whom all informa- 

 tion is withheld by their "Trustee" except as it may 

 be gathered through unofficial channels or by im- 

 posing unnecessary burdens upon individual mem- 

 bers of the Land Board in reply to letters of in- 

 quiry? Surely the Governor must be aware that the 

 great majority of entrymen reside outside of his 

 State many of these thousands of miles distant 

 and that these are not only "out of touch" intimately 

 with the affairs of the State, but are deprived of 



