St. Paul daily globe., 1891-11-09
A FLOUR CITY SUNDAY
An Interesting Point in Con-
neetiOn With the State
Park Land,
Where a Valuable Quarry Was
Condemned as Ordinary
Dirt.
Gods ENJOYS Negotiate With
the Ungodly for Sur
render.
Minneapolis Apparatus SEN
to Help Subdue Duluth
BlaZaS.

This Maxwell claim against the park
board may cause the city of Minneapolis
some trouble before il is settled. Max
well owns a stone quarry down near
Minnehaha fails. When the legislature
decided to establish a state park, to in
clude Minnehaha and the grounds sur
rounding it, Maxwelrs land was seized
by condemnation proceedings, together
with the land of several other property
owners. Then the land condemned for
state park purposes was turned over to
the board of park commissioners of the
city of Minneapolis. As soon as the
awards were made the land owners in
stituted appeal cases. The title. YIN
cite Lincoln ct al. VS.. The City of Min
neapOlis in re appeal from awards Of
the commissioners" appeared on the
the calendar of the district court term
after term, and all the cases went TO the
supreme court. The awards were con
fiTmed. Maxwell never appealed his
case. 1t seemed to be just like the
others. and appeals had come to naught
with them. He received something
like 5000 for his land-that is, he wa,
awarded that amount. but he never ac-
cepted it. 1t was too little in his oDin-
iOn. There was stone quarry on his
land that paid him S25 day. He could
hot afford to give UP that revenue for
s.. COO. More than that, committee
from the park board promised him that
the board would allow him more.
Last spring Mr.. Maxwell attended Il
meeting of the board and stated his
case. The majority Of the members
could not understand by what authority
the committee had agreed to Dav Max
well more for his land than the courts
had decided 10 be Just appraisal. But
Maxwell pressed his claim. 1t b0bbed
up al meetings of the board all summer
long. Finally that leisurely-moving
BODY named a committee to examine
Mr.. MaXWeIl'S claim. Two reports were
returned by that committee. The ma
jOritY recommended that Maxwell be
allowed &, 600 in addition TO the sum
awarded by the appraisers. James w.
Lawrence looked at the law OF the
case as we'll as at the equity.
He concluded that Maxwell had no
claim in law for more money than had
already been allowed him. His minor
ity report so stated. The report has not
been acted upon as yet. There is no
certainty about the course of the board.
Endorsement of either report is prOba-
bic. In either case an appeal is likely
to be filed.
Mr.. MaXwell's claim seems to be a
just one. His land was worth more
than that of his neighbOrs. There was
a stone quarry on it that yielded him
good income. The appraisers allowed
him only the ordinary valuation of farm
lands. And a couple Of acres of farm
land Will not yield a revenue Of So
day.
But Maxwell's appeal will cover more
than the unfair valuation placed upon
his land. E. j. Mcmahon is his attor-
neY, and he will raise a point in the
The point is this-the state has no light
than state purposes. It has no right to
take land and afterward turn it over 10
some one else. That is what was done
in this case. The state was all right in
cOndemning the land and seiZing it for
state park purposes. But had it any
authority in law to give that land to the
Minneapolis board Of park COM
miSSiOners? That is the question.
The lard seized by the state is not now
in the possession Of the state. The
state mas no interest i'll it. The Mime
apolis park board owns it exclusively.
On that point. Mcmahon will press the
MaXWell's claim.
The point may be good. The courts
will decide. If it does, what is to pre-
vent the other property owners around
Minnehaha. whose land was taken.f from
having their cases TeOpened. If they
dO-and they may-there is plenty of
business ahead for the park boari's
attorney.