The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1854-12-30
THE MINES @ I IA N
WEDNESDAY MORNING, DEC. 27, 1854.
The Superior City Case, Again.

tact. make their reply to the communication
published in the Mfnnesotian of Saturday, by
siupIy submitting the argument filed by them
at the General Land Office. The argument is,
no doubt. gotten up with all the skill and abil-
ity which is wont to characterize the iegai pa
pers submitted on all occasions when required,
by the'responsiblc and able law firm from Which
il emanates and We have no less doubt that all
the professional adroitness manifested IN the
framing of this argument must end in nousht,
and fall before the plain provisions OF statute
nv law. as walls Of earth would fall before the
batteries Of Sebastopol.
After thorough examination OF the law ana
the testimony, we have regarded and SUI re-
gard the decision Of the land officers at hudson
ia this case, as exhibiting a more profound ig-
norance of plain statutory provisions, than any
decision ever made in any of the land offices oil
the West. We hold that this decision is not
only illegal, but in open antagonism to what
has heretofore been understood to be the law,
even by the most uneducated "squattcr" In
the West.
Ist. 1t was proven at Hudson, that Superior
City had been selected as town site before
the date Of the presumption settlement!
ID. 1t was proven that it was not only Sc
Iected as a town site. but that at the time OF
the prescription settlement it was .sefHed
and oeeupied'' as such, and that there was, at
the time, some twenty men engaged IN lmprov-
ing the town, building houses, pier, &c.-all OF
which is not disputed by the pre-emptors.
ID. The grounds taken hy the counsel for
the pre-cmptors, and upon which the land oil
GERS predicate their decision, is, that the selec
ton was made before the land in dispute had
been surveyed. and that the settlement was
made. and the occupancy and improvements
commenced before that time; and by the Act
of ls07, the settlement was illegal and the I'M
provements were thus forfeited to the Govern
nent-ergo, the land was subject to pre-emp-
ton, We again ask, what is the title. under
this decision, TO all the town sites established
upon unsuryeyed lands in Minnesota, and who
would hold, should the greedy hand of Avarice
attempt to claim them by "pre-emption' this
day.
But 4th How will this position bear scru-
tiny. The presumption law Ct. S. Statutes at
large vol. 5, page 453,) contains the following
provisions -. No sections. or fractions of Sec
tions, within the limits Of an incorporated
town: no portions of the public lands ,raich
" hare been selected as the site for city or a
"town; no parcel or lot of land actually settled
and occupied for the purposes of trade and
not agriculture. and no lands on which are
SITUATED any known salines or mines, shall be
Z. liable to entry under and by virtue of the
provisions OF this Act
9Th 1t will thus be seen that the statute
says, these lands are not liable to presumption:
but the Hudson land officers say they are liable
10 presumption, because the settlement and i'm
provcmcnts thereon were commenced before
the survey: and the improvements thereby
become forfeited to the United Statcs-thus
plainly acknowledging there is a tOun there.
Let us see how this logic will work out
They say this town and the improvements
have been forfeited to, and become the property
of the United States. therefore the right of pre-
rmpton attaches. Salines, Mines and all other
reserved lands are the property of the United
States. therefore they may be pre-empted, not
outstanding the law says plainlyin such cases,
they are not liable to presumption.
No. gentlemen, that argument won't win.
Tie idea that Congress ever, under any Cir
cumstanccs. intended that an ''outsider" should
have the privilege of coming in and pre-empt
ing town or city, is simply absurd. Even
though the builders Of the town be "trespas
scrs", under the act of 1907, it was never in
tended that their property and improvements
should thereby be forfeited to the United States.
What becomes Of that plain constitutional pro
vision, which was SO properly and so strongly
urged in the Railroad case a few days since,
that private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation :: Still,
the town site would even before the enactment
of TIE law Of 1871. u. S. Statutes at Large
rcl.:,. page esq be at the disposal of Con-
gress, which always has. and we think always
will. dispose of the public lands in such cases
as justice and equity require.
9th. The act of lsi4 for the relief of the
citizens Of towns &c, was passed expressly to
provide for the entry of the lands of towns in
just such eases as this. 1t provides for the
lands being entered by the County Judge for
the benefit of the settlers and occupants of
towns /: and Commissioner John Wilson has es
pecally decided, that this law of 1874 is appli-
cable to towns which were LAID OFT BEFORE TIE
SURVEY. The Government Surveyors plat OF
this disputed land, deposited in the General
Land Office, is proof, of record, that Superior
City was SO laid out
We rely fully upon John Wilson for justice
in this case-that justice which has been de-
MED the actual. LEGAL settler by the decision
at Hudson and we have no fears that we
will in the end, be compelled to change the
high opinion We have always entertained and
freely expressed Of this gentleman, as to his
being an upright man and faithful public Of
fcer.
ST. PAUL, Dec. %, 1854.
To- Tho FL st, NJ