The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1890-03-29
ON CANAL LANDS.
CANAL LAND HOMESTEADERs IN A
FAIR WAY TO WIN.
THE FIRST VICTORY FOR THE noMfsTEADERs
ON WHAT ARE KNOWN Az CANAL LANDS
MIGHTY CORPORATION - DON NJ.
DICKINSON AT WORK ON THE
cAsE-THE HoMEsTEADERs
IN WAY TO IN TIME
SECURE THE LAND.

WAS handed down IN the case oil the Lake
Superior Ship Canal Railway * Iron Co.,
w. Walter Cunningham on motion for
a new trial. Hon. Don M. Dickinson APP
pearing for the deiendcnt. This Is the
celebrated "homesteaders' case, the
company seeking To eject the homestead
settlers upon the land in dispute. A for
mer trial resulted in verdict for the
company, from which the homesteaders
appealed. The history OF the case as
shown by Mr.. Dickinson's brief, IN sub
stantially IA follows:
In 1856 congress granted TO the state
Of Michigan every alternate section OF
land designated by the odd numbers of
six sections in width on each side of each
Of the following roads: From Little Bay
De Noquette 10 Marquette and thence 20
Ontonagon; from Marquette tn the Wis
consin state line; from Ontonagon To the
Wisconsin state line; from Amboy by
HillSdale and Lansing, and from Grand
Rapids To some point ON or near Traverse
BAY; from Grand Haven and Pere Mar
qnette To Flint and thence To Port
Huron.
The act ~ congress provided "that the
shall be subject to the disposal of the
legislature thereof for the purpose afore-
said and no other" "that the lands here
TN granted the said state shall he disposed
~ hy snid state only in tine manner fol-
lowing: That the granted lands not
exceeding 100 sections fnr each twenty
miles complete 81 sand roads may be sold.
And 40 ON, from time to time, until said
roads are complete, and il any al said
roads are not completed within ten years,
NO further sales shall Ice made. and the
lands unsold shall revert Co the United
States"
The legislature nv an net approved
February IL, 1857, accepted the grant
and conferred the lands Ia the different
companies which had been f,rmed for the
different routes specified in the act of
congress-, and among Others the Mar
quette 4 State Line Railroad Co.. for the
road from Marquette to the Wisconsin
state line, and the Ontonagon x State
Line Railroad Co. for the route from
Ontonagon 10 the Wisconsin state line
Section three of the act provides that
the lands thereby conferred upon or
vested in said railroad companies, ar
either Of them. shall beeNclusivly applied
in the construction of their respective
lines 81 railroad, and said land shall be
applied TO mo- other purpose whhtso-
ever"
On March 27. 1857, the Ontonagon &
State Line railroad assumed to consnli-
date with the Chicago. st. Paul x Fond
tlu Lac Railroad Co, and assumed to
convey 60 the consolidated road all its
| franchises. roadbeds, etc, and especially
call property acquired or To be- acquired
! by the party 81 the second part from, of
| and under an net Of congress, to the
lands along the line 81 the road 81 said
second party hereto" Not an inch Of
rnnd had then been built.
BY the JOINT resolution, approved Feb
rliniy 81, 1867. the state authorized the
governor to execute and file the certiti-
cate 81 surrender required 10y said JOINT
resolution 81 congress. and distinctly
reccipted by description the grant ofland
10 be surrendered ~ that for the con-
struction of this road from Marquette to
the Wisconsin state line; bat the com
missioner az the state land office, clearly
an n super fetal examination. and evil
IDENTIFY believing that Ontonngon wis on
the route from the Wisconsin state line
Ia MnrIuette, and that there WAS but nne
route, wrote 10 the solicitor 81 the Chlcn-
90 * Northwestern Co., which had un-
dertnken Co build the changed line from
Marquette Ia Menominec, that the release
81 the governors description oI the tracts
"for that portion III the branch line from
the WISCONSIN state line To Marquette il
in conformity with the joint rerolution ol
July 3, 1862
In S6S Gov. Baldwin surrendered these
lands. contrary to Inv, in his OPINION IN
Difference To- the demand 81 the commits
sioncr OF the general land office. This
was the opinion 81 Secrctory al the In.
terrier Schurz. and the senate committee
, ON public lands so found.
, MIR. Dickinson followed with history
! Of the grant Of the Canal company. claim
inc that IL was void and citing numerous
authorities ut length in support of HE
) position. In summing mp he claimed:
1. That the land waS not "A part d
the public domnin ut the time of th,
plnnt to the Canal company, and that
Z the canal grant could not relate To th'
future and pass a title Afterwards ncqnlr
/ ed ar reverted Co the United States.
; 2. That the certihcation WIS there
fore void, M the subject matter wis he
!, yond the jurisdiction 81 the officials o
( the land office.
z 3. That the title wis IN the state
and not ia the railroad company, whei
= the mortgage wns made and the fOreclos
!, ,,rc had. through which title is clnimct
Y Ia the United States, and the railroas
never having built n road, even it's righ
: 10 earn land WIS forfeited ut the date q
: the canal grant, and it's mortgage wa
J void.
A. That the title az the state WIZ
= never Invested until Legislative action
: wits had forcfcitine the grant in March
y 1889, which action expressly protected
: the defendant and his fellow Homestead
!, cfs.
: .. That this plaintiff eiectment can