St. Paul daily globe., 1891-05-09
A WAR IS IMMINENT.
The Mineral Lease Factions
Will Fight 1t Out in the
Courts.
Capital Is Behind Both the
Baker and the JamiSon
Factions.
The Meat Barons Correct an
Error and Talk Of the
Situation.
ForrestaPs Claims Being Ar
gued Before the Street
Committee.
A thunderbolt is shortly to fall.

II Is StlOIIly 10 ldll.
1t will not come from the heavens; !;
but from cOtere of determined men
who are of the belief that they have
been robbed of valuable mineral fran
chiSes.
And when the thunderbolt falls, so it
is said. a number of state officials will
tremble in their shoes.
An item recently went the rounds of
the local press respecting the issuance
of certain certificates giving the right
to work the minerals on land owned by
the state i'll the northern half of Min
neSOta. A law passed by the legisla-
ture of 1887 authorized this to be done.
The state, however, at the time, did not
possess the patents for some of the sec
tons which were claimed to be
i'll mineral ore, and it is only
only within the last few weeks
that the federal authorities furnished
the same. In the meantime Gen. Baker,
OF Blue Earth, and Lou Merritt, of St.
Louis, representing prominent capital
lists like themselves, filed with the state
auditor claims for certain lands, the
certificate to be furnished them when
the state obtained the patents. Attor-
ney Robert Jameson, of Minneapolis,
appears to have got on to the little deal,
and. when the patents were forwarded
by the federal government, he filed
claims for the land which MesSrs. Baker
and Merritt had previously selected.
MeSSrs. Baker and Merritt naturally
protested against the action of Mr..
Jameson.
1t was mighty tight hole which State
Auditor Biermau was placed in, and not
an easy point to decide-"WhoSe was
the land?" The state auditor ultimately
ruled in favor of Mr.. Jameson, and the
certificates were accordingly issued. He
reasoned this way: Messrs. Baker and
Merritt filed their claim before the state
was really in possession of the land. 1t
was. therefore. void. Mr.. Jamieson's
claim was the first one filed after the
state became possessed of the land.
Mr.. Jameson, now being in possession
of the certificates, has considerably the
advantage of the first claimants of the
land. But MeSSrS. Baker and Merritt do
not intend TO quietly sit down and allow
their claim to be set aside without a
fight to the bitter end. Accordingly,
suits are to be brought in the courts, and
in connection Herewith some sensa-
tional developments are promised.
There are some very awkward QueS-
tIonS to be asked.
First-Who are the people behind At
torney Robert Jameson?
The busybodieS around the city have
been making free with the names of
some very prominent state officials, and,
if their stories be true. or even partially
true, something will be heard drop by
these individuals.
SecOnd-HOW comes it that Mr.. jamie
son should file his claim within twenty
minutes after the patents were received
from the federal authorities by the state
auditor?
These patents had been expected for
years. 1t is hardly likely that Mr..
Jameson waited around the door of
the state auditors department far their
arrival and then promptly put in his
claim. He must have been apprised of
their receipt, or else of their dispatch
from Washington. In either case, the
answer to the question IS likely to lead
to others of sensational character.
The plaintiffs have engaged some of
the best attorneys in the state, and the
legal battle is going to be the greatest
which has ever occurred in the state.
There are several well-knOwn people
in the city who argue that MeSsrs.
Baker and Merritt are entitled to the
land, and they illustrate the case of
railroad companies. 1t has been the
custom of railroad companies to select
their land months and sometimes years
before the patent is received by the
state from the federal government, and
no one mas ever raised any doubt as to
the legality CT such action. If this be
so, why, then, i'll the particular cases of
Messrs. Baker and Merritt, should an
arbitrary ruling be set up and they de-
prived of land which, under other cir
cumstances, would have been granted?