Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1880-07-23

carrying out its provisions al the lands
which were reserved from the grant given BY
congress in aid of the Brainerd 4 Watab line
Of froad, might, by reason Of the prior compile
tian Of that line, be reqnired to- be sold and
applied towards the satisfaction of said claims
sbefare any Of the lands pertaining to the :oth-
ser line would qbet reached, and,sthat in such
event the first named reservation might be
subjected to more than q proportionate share
the burden Of salts flying such claims. .'& But
the appellant company has no right to coma
plain of this apparent hardship, for the rea-
son that it voluntarily availed itself Of the
provisions of the act and It's benefits with full
knowledge Of all the burdens the happening of
such contingency might entail. IN respect
to the amounts which wore awarded to the
several claimants BY the commission which was
created for that purpose by the act, the de-
terminations3 Of the officers comprising the
commission are final and conclusive. 1t is
not shown oy any allegation that they have
in any manner exceeded the authority dele
gated to them, and the act makes no provision
for reviewing or correcting any errors Of
Judgment they may have committed. :, 's< v :, :.
The suggestion that the questions submitted
for their determination involve. the exercise Of
judicial power. such as cannot under. the con-
stitutien be confsrrsds dpon members, of the
executive department, is without, any founda-
tion. whatever il, fact: In!providing for the
sale of the lands in question, and the distribu-
ton of the net proceeds among the claimants,
the State was simply dealing with its own
property under the restraint of no contract OBJ
legations to either the claimants or the appel
'ant company. LAS tosthem it could dispose of
the proceeds in any manner and upon any
principle it saw fit. 1t was within the sole
discretion Of the legislature to adopt any other
mode of disposition and distribution than that
contemplated by this.act. It might Arbitrarily
have designated in the act each claimant, and
the particular amount which he should be en-
titled to receive out of the bounty from ! the
State, and no one would have any legal righ,
to complain. Instead of this it has seon;f to
submit the matter Of the: adjustment Of such
claims under certain prescribed regulations to
officers of its own selection and in whose
Judgment it has confidence, and it has de-
clared that their determipation in the matter
shall form the basis upon which the bounty of
the State shall be apportioned among the
claimants, and if it is satisfactory to the State
no one else can complain; as it affects the per-
sonal or property rights Of nobody. NJ In view
of these considerations the court is of the
opinion that upon the allegation Of the COM
plant the appellant company, has not shown
itself entitled to any relief against the commits
sion of the acts which it is charged the gov
ernor is about 10 commit even though that
offense be and has been in this case properly
subjected t, the jurisdiction Of the court.
Nor can an accounting be required Of the re-:
rpondents herein in respect to their claims, for
if the views. already expressed are correct it
is clear that upon the facts stated in the com
plant no sufficient ground for AN accounting
exists. ~ 2''S - ,%':,% :'
The order sustaining the demurrer is af
frmed. ," =: CORNELL, j.
7 concur in the decision on the merits, but
am not prepared to agree t hat because the ae-
tion will not lie against the governor it may
not be retained as against the other defend
ants. - ~+GILFILLAN, C.,J.