Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the river. Repairs were no sooner made than another <br />flood came which washed out the headgate entirely, <br />necessitating the bu:lding of another one. <br /> <br />A dam across the river had long been an absoiute ne- <br />cessity for diverting water to the canal, and the Court <br />instructed the receiver to cause this dam to be built, at <br />a cost of S8,500.00, which was also paid for by his cer- <br />tificates. <br /> <br />The receiver continued n charge of the canal Jntil Ju!y. <br />1897, during which time he expended a total amount of <br />S86,000.00. HiS trials and tribulations dL.ring the period <br />of his receivership were as grievous as those of the farm- <br />ers. What crops were raised commanded very low <br />prices. and it was impossible to levy assessments suffi- <br />cient for the operation and maintenance of the canal <br />together with the much needed improvements withou: <br />confiscating their \vater rights. Assessments were lev- <br />ied each year. however, by the receiver, but r.ot in suffi- <br />cient amounts to pay for reaairs and operation. and a <br />debt of 521,000.00 was created, for which a 'llortgage <br />was executed oy the receiver to the Mercantile Tr~st <br />Company, of New York City. <br /> <br />During the time the receiver was in charge of the prop- <br />erty the La Junta and Lamar Canal Company executed <br />a deed to the King Reservoir, and a perpetual right to <br />the use of the canal for filling tre said reservoir to the <br />La Junta and Lamar Canal Company. a ccrporation con- <br />trolled by the First National Bank of Denver. Meantime <br />the decree of t:1e District court of Prowers County in the <br />John Hess suit. as affirmed by the Supreme Court, prc- <br />vided that the old La Junta and Lamar Canal should <br /> <br />16 <br />