St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-06-22
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

IINN 1NQ, q ONL A2s 1000.
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.
st. Paul Il Sioux City Railroad
Grant.
To the Editor Of the Globe:
In the GLOBE of June 10, containing
communication signed p. B. D., you have
an editorial note seemingly approving news
paper discussion about land grants for the
enlightenment of the public. What valu-
able light the public will get from so dull
luminary as your Luverne correspondent
remains to be seen. l see nothing in the
last communication to answer except to
expose the writer's ignorance of the subject
he discusses. He says: sit is a we'll
known fact that those indemnity lands
claimed by the St. Paul & Sioux City Rail
road company in Jackson, Mobiles and Rock
counties are in the limits Of the Southern
Minnesota Railroad companys grant, and
have never been forfeited by congress.
Will Mr.. Drake rise and ex-
plain?" MIR. Drake will explain.
The Southern Minnesota Railroad
company of 1857, to whom the grant was
made and given by the state, extended from
St Paul via Mankato to the south line of
the state; also grant from Hokah, opposite
La Crosse, to Rochester, Mimi, was given
the same company. In 1864, the state hav-
ing before resumed both grants and bought
in both roads, gave the road from St. Paul
to the south line of the state and all it's
lands to the now ST. Paul d Sioux City
company under the name Of the Minnesota
Valley Railroad company, afterwards
changed in name to the ST. Paul & Sioux
City Railroad company. The Rochester
road was continued by the name OF the
Southern Minnesota Railroad company and
had neither lands or road or the authority
to build q road within hundred miles of
jackson county.
THE LAND GRANT
of the Southern Minnesota Railway COM
pany west of Olmstead county dates from
1865, and is made expressly excepting lands
granted in 1857. These facts, of which P.
B. d. was evidently ignorant, answer all
there is i'll the last communication. I may
add that the Southern Minnesota Railroad
company carried through the courts suit
for these lands and the supreme court de-
cided against them and in favor of the ST.
Paul & Sioux City company.
In the GLOBE of the 10th another seeker
after notoriety appears to display his ignor-
ance and to pervert the truth, both Of which
he has successfully accomplished. He says
that both the st. Paul & Sioux City and
Southern Minnesota companies have sat
tempted" to acquire title to thousands of
acres of public domain in violation of law
and the terms of the grant. A little fur
ther along in the article the writer charges
that the attempt to get thousands of acres
has eliminated in getting unlaWfully ''hun-
dredS" of thousands Of acres. He says the
records of the land Office show hundreds of
thousands of acres that had been filled"
upon before the map of the road was
filed. On this statement I take
issue with the writer. The statement
is untrue. The language of the grant is.
''when the route of road is definitely fixed"
not when map is filed. Now it happened
that when the surveyors were marking the
lines Swarms of spectators followed them,
and had they been allowed to would have
absorbed all the valuable lands before maps
were filed. Such attempts were frustrated,
and both the general land Office and the
courts have held that definite location" at
rached to lands from the date of making it,
The language of the granting acts does not
except lands from the grant upon
A MERE FILING,
but to exclude from the grant in the Ian
guage of the law 1.-THE right of presumption
must have attached" In my experience I
remember scarcely case where filings were
abandoned in which the party filing could
have held the land had he not abandoned,
if any one had contested. It is well known
to anyone conversant with the history of
early prescriptions that not one-fourth of
all the entries were in good faith and in
compliance with law. In Minnesota west
of range 81 no lands were ever offered on
private entry. A large part of the even
sections were taken up on sworn state
ments of settlement and cultivation, and
years after, over these lands so entered, one
could ride for hours over the prairie without
seeing an inhabitant or a vestige of such
improvements. The history of these
presumption perjuries when the unerring
record is made up will be a terrible one.
The fictitious filings, when ''pre- emptions
had not attachsd," were correctly ruled by
the land Office not to exclude the land from
railroad grants. 1t is possible that in some
cases an abandoned tract to which pre-
emption had lawfully attached and which
had been abandoned, has been given to
companies. but the matter rests alone be-
tween the company and the government.
The company could, in every case when a
160-acre tract was ESQ excepted from the
grant, select another in its place, and after
such abandoned tract became government
land it could be
SELECTED FOR DEFICIENCIES,
becoming then selected instead of granted
land. In such case where is the fraud?
and who is injured? The granting ae:t to-
the St. Paul & Sioux City road of 1857 does
exclude from grant lands to which pre-
emption right has attached at the date of
definite location. The exclusion only ex-
tends six miles Oh each side of the road.
The deficiency lands may be selected from
any government lands at time of selecti'n
and without reference to former condition.
The fOur-section grant of 1864 does not ex-
cept or exclude any lands, and the grant
may be filed from any lands even if every
acre selected had been formerly excluded
from the grant of 1857. Not an acre in
Martin county and all the railroad lands of
Jackson county six miles south of the line
of location of the road are free from the
exception named in the act of 1857.
Within the six-mile limits where the excep-
ton operated do not remember a single
tract obtained by this company where
tract covered at location of road by bona
fde presumption, and afterwards aban-
dOned, has been given the road as granted
land.'' The writer says ''under the latter
view thousands Of acres have been covered
by filings, which the local land offices have
rejected, but which applications are now
before the interior department on appeal"
If the writer means to state that there are
appeals now pending to which this COM
pany is party, involving the points
named, 1 have to say it is another reckless
statement and is untrue. Again general
charge is made of conspiracy between
certain government officials and the rail-
road companies" made so general that it
cannot he rofutpd