Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-12-25

construction OF a rOad wholly within that
state, would be presumed to be confined
to lands within the state; and numerous
instances are cited of acts which are said
to be expressive of the intention of con
gress to confne the grants within state
limits, and words fixing the termini
wholly within the state are held to be
words sufficiently expressing thst inten-
ton.
In the case of st. Paul & Pacific rail-
road company VS.. Northern Pacific, de-
cided last March, and in the case Of st.
Paul etc. railroad company vs.. Green
algh, decided at the same time (Which
decisions are reported in the 10th United
States reports) the supreme court held
thac the grant to aid in the construction
of the St. Vincent extension was made
by act of congress approved March 3,
1871, and the act of March 3, 1873. The
act of March 3, 1871, provides:
"That the st. Paul & Pacific railroad
company (of which company the Manitoba
company IS succeS>Or) may so alter its
branch lines that instead of constructing a
road from Crow Wing to st. Vincent, ana
from st: Cloud to the waters of Lake Su.
periOr. it may so locate and construct, in
lieu thereof, a line from Crow Wing to
Brainerd, to intersect with the Northern Pa
cific railroad, and from st. Cloud tOa point
of intersection with the main line OF tine
original grant at or near Otter Tail or Rush
Lake, so as to form a more direct route to
st. Vincent, with the same proportional
grant of lands. to be taken in the same
manner along SAID altered lines as is pro-
vided for the present lines by existing laws:
provided, however, hat this change shall
in no enlarge said grant, and that
this act shall only take effect upon cOndi-
ton of being in accord with the legislation
of the state of Minnesota"
After the passage of this act the line
of the road was altered, but not in con-
formity with the provisions thereof, and
until the act of March 8, 1873, which
recognized ano approved of this location
was unauthorized by any law. These
acts, therefore, make a grant of lands to
a road located wholly within the state Of
Minnesota, and whose termini are fixed
by the act within the boundaries Of that
state; a condition of affairs which the
supreme court in the Phelps case held to
be expressive Of the intention of con
gress to confne the grant to state lin
it's. The Phelps case, therefore, instead
of %adjudging the Manitoba company to
be entitled to the lands in the Red River
valley, contains q strong intlmation that
such claim by them is absolutely with
out foundation. The shadowy nature of
this claim is we'll known to and recog-
nized by the company's officials, and it is
to strengthen and give substance to that
claim that the so-called act for the relief
of the settlers is urged. If such an act
were passed, giving the Manitoba a right
to take indemnity in lieu of the reIin-
quishment of this claim (Which is no
claim), it would place that company's
title to the indemnity lands, if it accept
ed the act, beyond question, end
would virtually amount to a new
grant to that company of some
100000 acres of land. Further, it would
be a Legislative recognition of the justice
of the Manitoba's most unjust claim,
and would tend strongly to influence the
courts in their decisions in any cases
where that claim came into question, as
it assuredIy would, if the Manitoba
company should feel that it's claim was
sufficiently strengthened by such recog-
milton to justify a refusal on their part
of a proposition made by congress-, for
there can be no assurance that a propo-
sition by congress to give indemnity will
be accepted by the Manitoba company.
There is nothing in the past history OF
that company, or Of it's leading spirits tc
warrant a belief that they will relin.
quish valuable and improved lands in
the Red River Valley to accept wild, in.
ferior tracts elsewhere, if they believe
that their claims to the more valuable
lands can be substantiated. The case
calls for delay and investigation rather
than the hasty action urged upon con,
gross.
If the Manitoba people believe theil
claim to be just and are sincere in theil
expressions of desire not to interfere
with Ut disturb the settlers, that claim
can easily be contested without expense
or trouble to the settlers. A test case
may be selected, as was done in the
Phelps case. If the Manitoba's claim
is sustained, they will then be Tn the
same position they now claim to be in
and then will be the time 10 pass acts fol
the relief of the settlers.
We are advised by eminent counse
there is no foundation whatsoever in the
Manitoba's contention that the acts O
congress of 1871 and 1873 gave it any
lands beyond the boundaries of tn.
state of Minnesota.
, We commend these suggestions to The
: attention of our friends in the Rec
, River valley whose homes are threat
opo1 NV fhio voroo;o,e onrooro+;oo