Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-12-25
is 1T A

is 1T A STEAL?
Recently a number of articles from APP
parently different sources have been
printed in various newspapers in Mime
sofa and North Dakota particularly
those papers circulating most extensive
ly through the Red River valley coun-
try) asserting that the decision of the
supreme court in the case of the st.
Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway
company VS.. Phelps, decided about a
year ago, determines co%nclusively that
the Manitoba people are entitled to
lands within the state of North Dakota
by virtue of the grant by congress to aid
in the construction of the st. Vincent
extension of the st. Paul, Minneapolis &
Manitoba Railway system, and urging
that settlers in that section Of the coun
try should unite in bringing pressure
upon congress to pass an act for their
relief. The road by which the relief
sought is to be obtained is pointed out
to be an act giving the st. P, M. Il M. R'y
company other lands in lieu of those in
North Dakota occupied by settlers, and
which it is asserted in these articles are
the property of the Manitoba COM
pany.
These articles are remarkable for sew
eral things: First, as an illustration Of
the in which widely separated
minds may simultaneously travel in the
same channel. Although the decision of
the supreme court was rendered nearly
year ago, but little or no COM
ment was made thereon until
just prior to the present session of
congress, when the urgent necessity for
congressional relief at once strikes
newspaper correspondents in Washing
ton and the newspaper editors at home.
simultaneously they raise a cry de-
handing protection, which protection
shall consist in procuring for the st.
Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba railway
company a large area of lands, estimat-
ed at 100000 acres. Second, they are
remarkable in the uniformity in which
they concede that the Phelps decision
above referred to conclusively deter
mines the Manitoba company's right TO
these lands, although few, if any, law
yers had previously been able to per-
ceive that such result would follow that
decision, and although nearly all lawyers
who have given the matter attention
now deny that any such result can fol-
low from the decision referred to. Third,
they are remarkable for the unanimity
with which the writer's cry that the re-
lief for the settlers must be obtained
through valuable lands to be granted to
the Manitoba company.
simultaneously with these article, no.
tees Of eviction were served by the
Manitoba people upon the settlers, such
eviction to take place between December
18th and December 25th, a period about
contemporaneous with the perfecting of
the working organization of congress-.
Ii LII VI Olo udUuIe u lllSS0
demands from apparently widely diverg-
ent sources, the coincidence in time of
their origin, contemporaneous as it is
with the opening of congress, may we'll
point to a single hand pulling the wires
by which the puppets are made to dance.
Can these wires be traced to, and that
hand identified with, a hand within the
railroad offices of the St. Paul, Mime
apolls Il Manitoba railway company in
the city of st. Paul: Has the company
an interest in the starting of such ru-
mors and demands? Certainly not, if
the assertion be true that the Phelps de-
cision conclusively determines the Mani.
toba company's right to the Red River
valley lands. Nowhere within the public
domain of the United States, at this day,
a lands be obtained equal in value
and fertility to these which the Mani.
toba company would r~elinquish if it &C.
copied the relief proposed; but if that
as sertion be not true, how then:
The question justifes the further in.
quiry, is that assertion true? In the
Phelps case the supreme court had be.
fore it the act of congress approved
March 3, 1857, entitled, Gan act making
a grant of lands in the territory of Min.
~nesota, in alternate sections, to aid in
the construction of certain railroads in
said territory, and granting public lands
in alternate sections to the state of Ala.
bama to aid in the construction of 6
certain railroad in that state" At the
date this act was passed Minnesota was
a territory whose western boundary was
the Missouri river. The termini of the
various roads to aid which the grant was
made, were all within the then territory
There was no certainty that the state
would be admitted before the grant
| ch0u11 no oI,r;p;,korol TIao,o ,o-1c