174 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



13 per cent. First, there is a 1 per cent penalty, and 

 then there is added 1 per cent a month as long as the 

 default continues. Does the senator think that the 

 necessities of the occasion demand such a heavy pen- 

 alty as that?" 



Senator Smith replied: 



"That shocked me, as it did all the balance of 

 the members of the committees of both Houses. They 

 worked on it for about three months, however, and 

 concluded that those hardships were not half so apt 

 to occur as that there would be those who would in- 

 tentionally avoid it. No man would permit his neigh- 

 bor's property to go in default for lack of the pay- 

 ment of 1 per cent per month on $3. One per cent 

 on $3 will be his first charge ; and it keeps a per- 

 centage of that kind on so small a sum merely as a 

 penalty for not doing it. 



"The reason is to prevent thievery of public lands. 

 The reason is to prevent a man coming into one of 

 these irrigation enterprises and throwing the duties 

 and obligations and burdens of, the great, costly en- 

 terprise on other people, holding his land without 

 putting up a cent just as long as he can hold it, going 

 to court, having a suit about it, and staying as long 

 as he can. If you should add the amendment we are 

 talking about, he would never put up a cent and the 

 improvements and the annual charges of the other 

 people would have to be borne in bulk and distributed 

 among those who did pay. It was to keep out that 

 class of people, who number five to one as against 

 those who are in default because they can not pay, 

 that the committee acted/' 



Senator McCumber proposed an amendment to 

 cut-the penalties in half. It was promptly rejected. 



A FARMER'S REPLY TO MR. LANE'S LETTER 



By J. E. McCUTCHEN 

 Huntley, Mont. 



WHAT I shall attempt to write after reading the 

 letter sent out by the Secretary of the Interior 

 will, I believe, reflect the sentiment of a very large 

 number of settlers on the Huntley project. 



The most noticeable thing in the letter is the 

 Secretary's failure to comprehend the homestead- 

 ers' position. Probably he thinks he knows full 

 well what he is about, but the Water Users very 

 generally doubt it. 



The settler on the Huntley project does not 

 expect any more of the Reclamation Service than it 

 promised. We are asking yea begging, for that 



much. But with all our 

 begging the Reclama- 

 tion Service is handing 

 us more and more of 

 misfortune. The Rec- 

 lamation Service makes 

 no fair effort to get the 

 homesteaders' side of 

 the situation. 



The investigations 

 are made through em- 

 ployes of the Reclama- 

 tion Service, who are 

 interested in giving a 

 beautiful face to their 

 business, without re- 

 gard to our expense 



J. E. McCutchen and almost wholly ig- 



noring what we have to say. They are interested 

 in winning approval for the plans of the Reclama- 

 tion Service, while if they should give us a fair 

 deal it would result in a very general- condemnation 

 of the Service. 



We certainly do not want to be excused from 

 paying all we contracted to pay so long as the 

 Reclamation Service makes good its ide of the 

 contract, but when we are made to pay more and 

 produce it from land not nearly as productive as 

 was represented to us, and much of it so nearly 

 worthless as to require a lifetime to put it into pro- 

 ductive condition, we do ask for a little leniency 

 in order that we may not have to sacrifice the time 



and means already expended on the homestead. I 

 can't believe the Department of the Interior is mak- 

 ing any fair attempt to give the Huntley project 

 a iair deal. What little it may know of this project 

 has not been acquired from a source that considers 

 the farmer. 



If the Secretary and his assistants have at- 

 tended no more meetings and talked with no more 

 Water Users on other projects than they have with 

 Water Users on the Huntley project, they have 

 come in contact with fewer than "thousands." Tak- 

 ing the Huntley project as a basis, I think they 

 have met fewer than five hundred in the whole 

 reclamation area. 



Mr. Lane's visits in our homes, fields and meet- 

 ings are mostly fiction. We can consider it only 

 as so much flattery when he says the farmers on 

 these lands are above the average in ability and 

 intelligence, and that they are generally of high pur- 

 pose, resolute, self-dependent and determined. If 

 he meant anything else, he certainly would give 

 ear to our needs as we see them. 



He proposes that we shall "reason together," 

 but politely hints that we shall neither think nor 

 speak, while he reasons and talks to us, when he 

 states that his circular letter needs no reply. Be 

 good, childen, I know what you need. I'll get it 

 for you, if I can. 



We can hardly second the Secretary's request 

 for a law to give him permission to follow out his 

 plans, when we have no part in the reasoning. 

 What the settler wants, and all red-blooded Ameri- 

 cans want, is law that will permit him to live and 

 to work with personal freedom. 



Where, in any free government, is there such 

 an anomaly as there is in the Reclamation Service? 



There is no limit to the tax that the Reclama- 

 tion Service may put upon us. We are aware that 

 many of us are not doing the best under the cir- 

 cumstances, but there are good and sufficient rea- 

 sons, and they lie at the door of the Reclamation 

 Service. The conditions are not what the Service 

 represented they would be, and they induced people 

 to come here who had not the means to meet the 

 conditions, and who prefer to do less drudgery than 

 the conditions require. 



Some don't know how to do better, but the 



