ttracted the attention of a young Yale
graduate, who is editing an evening paper in Sioux Falls, and he began
to collect the views of experts on the question of artesian irrigation.

Mr. Tomlinson, of the _Argus Leader_, had, probably, no idea of the mass
of literature with which the theme was potential, and the way the
papers, even outside the State, have followed his lead must be
flattering to him both as an editor and public-spirited citizen. My
indebtedness to Mr. Tomlinson for some of my facts being thus cheerfully
acknowledged, let me plunge _in medias res_ into the turbid waters of
the irrigation problem.

Shall we make it "rain from the earth, when the sky fails"? is now,
thanks to an editor, the great Dakotan question. It is a question of
many facets. What does it cost, will it pay, is it safe, or must it
ultimately poison the ground by sowing the land with salt like a vandal
conqueror, and creating a Sahara for immediate posterity? Finally, if it
is to be done on a proper scale, how shall the burden of the
introduction be borne; by the township, the county, the State, the
nation, or by private enterprise? Let us take up these points
_seriatum_. Professor Upham, of the United States Geologic Survey, a man
of unquestionable honesty and no mean authority generally, thinks that
the cost alone demonstrates the futility of attempting the artesian
system. He bases his opinion on the Jamestown well, which cost $7,000.
Yet if, as there seems to be no doubt, irrigation will increase the
wheat crop by at least ten bushels an acre, even this large expense
would be warranted by the increase in land value. But it is probably not
known to Professor Upham that wells between Jamestown and Huron are
being sunk now for half, in some cases one-third, and in a few cases
one-tenth of his reckoning. So with this change of former figures, the
question of cost may be said to cut no figure. But will it pay
permanently, and to what extent? Prof. G. E. Culver answers this
question with great ability. He says positively that it will not
materially change climate nor by attraction increase appreciably the
annual rainfall, though he thinks it may tend to equalize the
distribution of the rainfall. As to climate one might be inclined to
disagree with him. There has certainly been a great change in the
climate of Utah since irrigation was begun there, and an appreciable
change in some parts of Southern California, though not in Colorado, as