THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



143 



to give greater freedom and opportunity at every 

 point. 



Mr. Lane's letter seems to admit at least in part 

 these general principles ; but we believe he fails ade- 

 quately to appreciate them. 



He appears to be unduly impressed by what we 

 believe to be two dangerous fallacies long current 

 in the old regime, namely the so-called duty of en- 

 forcing the impracticable farm unit, left entirely 

 to his discretion and surely never intended by con- 

 gress to be retro-active, and the vision, we might 

 say nightmare, of the hordes of hungry homeseekers. 



Would it not be wiser for the secretary to be 

 relieved by congress from all responsibility regard- 

 ing the farm unit? Is it not as purely an economic 

 problem as free coinage of silver? It is, of course, 

 perfectly proper for congress to limit the bounty of 

 the government as is done in the homestead law. 

 Is it not wholly impossible for congress or for any 

 man to decide what is a proper living for a fellow 

 citizen ? When, hitherto, has such a problem been 

 held to be a proper province of any government? 



Is not such increased surrender of our personal 

 liberties as proposed a startling doctrine to emanate 

 from a democratic administration? Is it not both 

 unnecessary and unsafe? Does it not give added 

 force to the following statement made by the writer 

 at the Washington meeting: "We believe the 

 proper control for the benefit of all the people of 

 the inevitably increasing concentration of the Fed- 

 eral power in the political government at Wash- 

 ington is a problem fully as serious to the nation as 

 the proper control of industrial power. We believe 

 that our condition offers an illuminating example of 

 the dangerous abuse of this power under present 

 bureaucratic methods. We feel, therefore, that the 

 whole nation is interested in a full understanding of 

 the conditions under which we live; conditions we 

 believe absolutely at variance with the fundamental 

 doctrine of our form of government." 



THE SALT RIVER HOMESTEADER 



By H. A. Bustrin 



(R. F. D. No. 4, Phoenix, Ariz.) 



The condition of the homesteader in this valley 

 is a hard one. About seven years ago a party 

 showed me a quarter section of as fine land as 

 anyone could wish. I only had thirty acres and 

 wanted more, but I was afraid there never would be 

 water for the outlying land. I did not have the 

 courage then that others have had since. About 

 16,000 acres have now been taken in and I believe 

 that 19 out of every 20 farms are owned by real 

 home makers. The balance are in the hands of 

 land grabbers. 



The home maker has had 3, 4, 5 and 6 years of 

 hardships and disappointments which would dis- 

 courage the best of us, but they toiled and held on, 

 turning their faces toward success, which they fin- 

 ally partly realized last spring. To accomplish this 

 they were compelled to make heavy sacrifices which 

 added to their burdens. They borrowed money and 

 built their own canal that the Reclamation Service 

 could give them water. Here is where the injustice 

 really begins. The Reclamation Service compelled 



them to do business with them, also with the Water 

 Users' association on the basis of 160 acres. 



They formed the Western Canal Company for 

 the purpose of building that canal and each man 

 had to be in good standing with that company, also 

 with the Water Users' association, or the Reclama- 

 tion Service would not give them water. The dues 

 of the water users were very large and a heavy bur- 

 den. Some of these people had money and they 

 spent thousands of dollars to make a home and 

 many of those tilled one-half of their land (80 acres) 

 to make final proof which many have done and have 

 their receipts for the full amount (160 acres), and 

 many a tract has since been sold and resold and is 

 now held by innocent persons. 



And now comes the Reclamation Service, 

 through Mr. Lane, and says that you can't hold but 

 40 acres. You must relinquish your excess holdings 

 or assign them to another, which I think is one of 

 the blackest spots on the Reclamation Service pages, 

 and they were already dirty enough. I have no 

 fault to find with Mr. Lane, for he has confidence 

 in Newell, Davis and L. C. Hill, and these three are 

 the responsible ones, for they have recommended 

 the 40 acre unit to him and he believes they are 

 right and has acted, and it was held up for a while, 

 but I do not think Mr. Lane will change unless the 

 homesteaders show him that Newell was talking 

 through his hat when he said that a man on 80 

 acres broke even and a 160 acre man lost money, 

 and that 40 acres was enough for an Arizona farmer 

 in the Salt River valley. Can we make a living on 

 40 acres? Yes, but if we have to pay every dollar 

 the Reclamation Service has wasted here we will need 

 more than a living, for we have many mouths (Rec- 

 lamation Service) besides our own to feed. 



WANT CONTRACTS PROTECTED 



Water Users on the Truckee-Carson project 

 adopted resolutions endorsing the Newlands bill in 

 part, but demanding that it be amended so as to pro- 

 tect the rights of those, settlers who now have con- 

 tracts with the government, fixing the cost of their 

 water rights at $22 or $30 per acre. The resolution 

 says in part: 



"Resolved, further, That we consider that sec- 

 tion 6 of said bill, taken in connection with section 10, 

 provides by implication at least for an increase in con- 

 struction charges to be assessed against former entry- 

 men who now hold contracts for the furnishing of 

 water by the Reclamation Service at certain fixed con- 

 struction charges per acre, and who may now wish 

 to avail themselves of the provisions of the act. We, 

 therefore, call upon our delegation in Congress, Sena- 

 tors Newlands and Pittman and Congressman Rob- 

 erts, to use their utmost endeavor to have said sec- 

 tions 6 and 10 so amended that it may be clear that 

 former entrymen may secure the benefits of this act 

 without having imposed upon them additional charges 

 for project construction except for betterments made 

 in the future." 



A resolution opposing the reduction of farm 

 units to 40 acres on the Truckee-Carson project was 

 also adopted. 



