The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1854-12-30
Argument.
ST. PAUL, Dec. 81, 1854.

Hood, Charles Kimball, A. A. Parker and John
Stewart to fractional sections Is and a. in
township 40, north of range IA, west of the 4th
principal meridian, in the County of Douglas
and State of Wisconsin. as town site. we re-
present Vincent Roy, Bazilc Dennis, Charles
Brissette and Antoine Warren, of said County.
pre- emptors of said sections, according to the
legal subdivisions specified in their respective
declaratory statements and proofs on file in the
land office at Hudson Wisconsin.
The subject is brought before your Office by
paper called "protest." filed in the land
office at Hudson. on the l4th day Of May. 1854,
signed by the said Brunson, Slaughter, Hood,
Kmball, Parker and Stewart which protest
was forwarded to you by the Register and Re-
emptors. and was by you returned to the said
Register and Receiver. with letter of instruc-
tions, dated August 18th. 1854.
Pursuant to that letter notice was duly Civ
en- to the parties interested. and on Monday.
the fifth day of December instant, they appear
ed by themselves and their counsel before the
Register and Receiver, and the protestants sub
mitted such testimony as they had relative to
the subject matter of the inquiry directed by
you.
The pre- cmptors did not offer any rebutting
testimony, believing that even taking the state
ments of the witnesses on behalf of the protest
ants as entirely true (Which they were not bya
great deaD still such statements wholly failed
to prove that the land in question was settled
aud occupied as a town site within the fair. pro-
per and legal meaning of the Act of Congress,
of March %, 1914, prior to the settlements
thereon by the prc-emptors respectively.
The legal objections to the claim. as made by
the protestants. were stated in detail to the Re-
gster and Receiver. and have been placed up
on the record of the inquiry, and to these you
are respectfully referred
Although the testimony taken is very volum-
nous. yet the facts bearing upon the question,
as by it established. are few and simple. They
will, we presume. be reported to you by the
Register aud Receiver substantially as fol-
lows:
Benjamin W. Brunson and R. F. Slaughter.
two ofthe protestants. at the dates of the set
Elements, and prior thereto, resided with their
families at st. Paul, Minnesota, and were only
temporarily present at Superior for the pur
pose of speculation. They never had any bona
fde residence upon the land in question.
Hood, kimball. Parker and Stewart the re-
naming professionals. all ON the 9TH day of
March. 1854. made their proofs as prc-cmptors,
and entered portions of the public lands at the
Land Office at Hudson. such lands being in
range Is, short distance from the lands in
question.
Hudson. Wisconsin, is from six to eight days
journey from the alleged site of Superior City.
On the 18th of March. 1854, these pre-cmp-
tors and protestants. in con junction with Brun-
son and Slaughter selected the site of Superior
City by surveying into streets and lots the
greater portion of these two fractional sections
of land. containing 70l 20-1O0. each taking an
equal share, or one-siXth. in the operation In
other words. eight days before, at Hudson. four
of these protestants had acquired section of
land at the minimum price. as pre-cmptors and
then on the 18th. (the interval having been cx-
pended in travelling from Hudson to Superior.)
they claim FOL 2Ol00 acres, as the occupants
of town site! These facts are clearly estab-
lished by the testimony and by the records Of
your Office.
Section 49, T. 40. R. l3, was surveyed by
George R. Stuntz. L. S. Surveyor. on the 9Th
day of April, 1854 and the survey of that sec
ton was completed about noon on that day.
Vincent Roy. who claims the right to pre-
empt lots and in that section. settled upon
the land on the 18th day of April. 1854.
1t would seem from the testimony of some of
the witnesses. that the survey of the town plat.
made by Brunson and his confederatcs, was
completed before the survey by the Govern
ment Surveyor was made. But the witness,
Kimball. says it was nearly done. and thinks it
was finished after the Government survey. The
Government plat of the township contains the
plat of Superior City" marked thereon Su-
perior." and it would therefore appear to be
manifest that the town site had been surveyed
prior to the Government survey.
On the 9Th day of April, 1854 the following
improvements were upon sectoa ID. viz: On
lot ?, one log cabin. about l6 Is, one story
high, one room, built before the Government
survey. With the exception of the streets.
marked out, pursuant to the survey of the town
plat. that log cabin was the only Improvement
on that lot at the time of the Government sur
vcy, and no other Improvement was made upon
it between the date of the survey and the 18th
day ofApril, 1854. the date of settlement by
the pre-emptor and it is upon such improve
mcnts that the W theses base their statements
that lot No. 2 was settled and occupied as a
TOWNSHIP, prior to the settlement by the pre-
emptor.
On lot there are three log cabins all built
before the Government survey. and two others
in course of erection. commenced before Gov
eminent survey, all within q space of about
twenty rods. There were preparations made
for building what the witnesses called pier"
which were commenced before the surrey with
the exception of the streets marked or cut out
pursuant to the survey of the town plat, those
five log cabins, and the preparations for that
pier, were all the Improvements made upon
that lot at the date of the Government survey.
and no other improvements were made before
that date, and the 18th day of April, 1854. the
date of settlement by the pre-cmptor and it
is upon such improvements that the witnesses
base their statements, that lot l was settled
and occupied as town site prior to the set
Element by the pre-emptors.
All these improvements, except one of the
cabins built by man named Chase and COM
menced before the surveys were made, by, for
and at the expense of the protestants who are
the embodiment of this town. No family had
ever resided in Superior City, at the date of
the settlement by the pre-emptor and it would
seem from the statements of the witnesses that
the only persons who dreamed of settling and
occupying the place as q town site were Brun-
son and his confederates, and that they did it
not with view to live there, but for the pur-
pose Of getting the land at the minimum price.
Imagine the County Judge entering 7Ol 2O-lOO
acres ofland at 81 25-lO0 per acre under the
act of May 23d 1874 and conveying it to these
six men as the occupants of lots in a town
giving to each lot containing more than 100
acres. How ridiculous!
On lot and 2 in section a. which were
surveyed by George r. Stuntz. U. S. Surveyor
on the 9Th day of April, 1854, and were settled