| OCR Text |
Show lion, such reduHHiricatlou, however, it would seem, nhould be restricted to hinds which have nut been entered upon the faith of the former classification." classifi-cation." The secretary" letter of May 4, 1910, was umh1 as a precedent for the decision de-cision In the cane of "Theodore Mott," :t U D. 33. In this decision It was stated: "By analogy to the foregoing, It Ih not believed after laud has once been designated as coming within t he pro vision of auction 3 of the enlarged homestead act, and entry has been made thereof on the strength of such designation, that the entry should thereafter be cancelled in the absence of a showing of bad faith, fraud, or failure to comply with law; certainly certain-ly not the mere physical possibility that the land is susceptible of Irrigation Irriga-tion without a corresponding showing that such Irrigation can be accomplished accom-plished at a reasonable (cost, aa contemplated con-templated by the act. However, as to lands that have not been entered, the effect of the cancelled designation may, and should, very properly apply." From the foregoing ruling and decision de-cision you will note that It depends entirely upon the good faith of the entryman whether or not bis entry shall be be cancelled if he secures water after having made entry. In the absence of bad faith and fraud, which would mean a knowledge that water could be secured at the tims entry was made, the department has Indicated by Its decisions that It will not cancel an entry upon whbch water has been found after date of filling," Yours very truly, (Signed) KKED 8 MOOT. OF INTEREST TO DRY LAND ENTRYMEN. Mr. Lewis A. Merrill, Agricultural Expert. Salt Lake Route, Salt Lake City. Utah: I am In receipt of your letter advis Ing me tbat subterranean water may be found at a depth varying from 10 to 70 feet, over a large area of land classified as "Enlarged Homentead Lands," and Inquiring if it would be posnlble for Smoot Act entrymen on these lands to prove up and eecure patent If they should get water by pumps and put some of the ground under Irrigation. This question bas been presented to me a number of times since the passage pass-age of the Smoot act In 1909. as there have been many cases where entry-men entry-men bave discovered means of securing se-curing water after making entry, mch source of water supply being unknown at the time the land was designated under the provisions of the Smoot act and unknown to the entrymen at the time of entry. The importance of the quenllon prompted me In March, 1910, to ask the Secretary Secre-tary of the Interior for a ruling to set a a precedent I submitted to him a letter I had received from a resident of Salt I-ake City, to bane his ruling on. This resident had made entry under the non-residence sec lion (Section 6) of the Smoot act, and later bad secured water In sufficient quintltlea for domestic purpoaes by means of a well. On May 25. 1910. the Secretary of the Interior replied to my request for a ruling, which reply re-ply will be found In full In 38 L. I) '.S6. In hi letter tbe Secretary made the the following statement: "While It Is believed that a deig nation or clarification of lands under he Smoot act involved I not nece-tarily nece-tarily conclusive, nevertbeletf, I am f the opinion that where entry i made under the provision of Section 5. upon the faith and in full reliance jpon the correctness of tbe design-Lion design-Lion or classification should not thereafter there-after be modified to tae Injury of any ne who In good faith ba acted upon mrb designation. "Tbe fact that certain entrymen Have secured water upon lands so -lamlfled. would probably constitute i good reason for reexamination of he Lands Included within the area ieslgaated. with a view to recli flea- |
