St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-08-09
Property of the State.


therein provided that all lands remain
ing after existing grants have been
filed shall revert to and become the
Property of the State.
/ believe if all the companies would
speedily close up their grants the state
would derive greater benefit there
from than it will ii it attempts to fill the
state Institution grant by selecting, as
the expense of so doing will involve an
outlay of at least 100000.
| think if this company would present
a deed to the governor for execution. he
might, with the greatest propriety, exc
cute such conveyance, you as auditor
and land commissioner, being COM
pletely abSolyed from all responsibility
DY the terms Of the law. As conceive
it, your duty will begin and end When
ever sufficient record is made in your
Office of this executive act. Such a
course has already been sanctioned by
long years of precedence, will be simply
just TO this company and work no hard
ship or loss to tie state. Yours very
truly, w. w. BRADEN,
Land Commissioner.
State of Minnesota, Auditors Office,
ST. Paul, Sept. 8. lS9l-Hon. w. w.
Braden. Land Commissioner Great
Northern Railroad Company, st. Paul,
Minn.-Dear Sir: Your letter of the
Sd inst. received. in which you state
your view as TO The manner of selecting
swamp lands granted by the state 10
the Minneapolis IL st. Cloud Railroad
company, Hlnckley branch. under
legislative acts of FeD. II, 1865, and
March ;, 1869.
[ do not fully agree with you in your
views. In referring 10 the opinion of
the supreme court in Minneapolis 81
: Cloud Railroad Company VS.. Duluth
" Winnipeg, defendant. and Duluth &
Iron Range Railroad Company, inter
venor, 45 Mlnn.. page l04, you say that
fact that the state may make
the selections. The language
used strikes me as rather
emphatic-"But the right of selection
not being given to the plaintiff belongs
to the state, which may fill the grant
out of any of its swamp lands. Not
withstauding the grant to the plaintiff,
the state mad a right to grant any of its
swamp lands to any one else, provided
only it retained enough to fill plaintiffs
grant" This L think one of the rea-
sons why plaintiff lost the case, other
wise why should it appear in the sylla-
bus.
l cannot by any means consider this
language of the supreme court as incl
dental. and even if did, still consider
it of Importance; in fact. so much so,
that the question has occurred 10 me
why the proper steps should not be
taken to
Set Aside the Deeds
already issued 10 your road conveying
the swamp lands selected by it under
the law OF 1869. If your grant confined
you to the odd numbered sections, l
cannot at present see any valid reason
why you should not be privileged to
make your own selections. subject to
the approval of the state, hut as your
grant does not contain this limitation. l
think il would be the duty of the state
to step in and see to it that the state in
StltutiOns, being so limited, are pro-
tected, SO as to give them at least an
even chance with your road in selecting
from the even-numbeled sections.
do not know what the state would
make by yielding the right of selection
on the presumption that it would cost
100000 to select the land our state in
stitutions are entitled to. The invest
ment might be good one, and as the
state will in all probability be involved
in this expense sooner or later. better
incur it while the area 10 select from is
large than wait until it becomes cur
tailed 10y the filling of your grant.
1t occurs to me that The best way out
of this dilemma would Oe to postpone
action until the
Legislature Prescrfbes
the proper method and appropriates the
Dc
i have endeavored in these lines to
give you some idea of the difficulties
meet in coming to a conclusion in this
matter. Shortly, when little more at
leisure than at present. | will address a
letter TO the attorney general. and with
his assistance | hope to be able to adopt
stand. Should he be of your opinion.
that l am absolved by the law of 1869
from all responsibility IN the matter, it
will probably simplify matters consid-
erably; but even if his opinion should
coincide with yours, l would hesitate to
assume that the custodian of the state
lands is abSolved from all responsibility
in a matter that cannot help thinking
must be of considerable Importance to
the state. Yours very truly.
A. BIERMANN, Auditor.
State of Minnesota, Auditors Office,
St. Paul, Oct. 3, 1S91-Hon. Moses Z.
Clapp, Attorney Genera.-Dear Sir:
The Great Northern Railroad company
is desirous of filling the grant to the
Minneapolis q st. Cloud railroad,
Hinckley branch, under legislative act
of March 5, 1869.
Under decision of the supreme court,
45 MilIn. 104, lands to fill this grant may
be selected from the even as we'll as the
odd-numbered sections, and the right of
selection not being given to the grantee,
belongs to the state.
l have had some difficulty in arriving
at a decision in this matter, and to aid
me in removing my doubts, the railway
company, though its land commissioner,
Hon. w. w. Braden, under date of Sept
3, 1891, addressed to this office letter, a
synopsis OF which | give you. He stated
that the company had completed its
road and selected IN the usual way
about 125. 900 Of the 425,00O acres grant.
ed: that 1t Is now desirous of making
selections as rapidly as possible and
close up its grant, and that in so doing
the state will derive greater benefit
than by attempting to fill the state lnsti
tutionS' grants, as that would involve
the state in a considerable expenditure
of money.
Furthermore it is suggested that the
state auditor aud ex-offlcio land commits
sioner would be absolved from all re-
sponsibility under the terms of the law
and that his duty begins aud ends in
recording the deeds which, under the
law, it is The duty of the governor t.
execute on behalf of the state.
My opinion Is that the state having ir
this instance, and in this instance only
the right OF selection, 1t ought to bt
worth something to the state as vel
as to the railroad company, and tina
the interests Of the state would be bes
subserved by first filling the grants t.
state institutions, even at considerable
outlay, more especially as their
Grants Are Limited
to even-numbered sections. and deed
covering selections made by the com
pany prior to the decision of the cour
and contrary thereto might he set aside
No sufficient funds being available t,
pay the expense of filling either grants
it has occurred to me that the BETTE
course to pursue would be to let tn
whole matter rest until the Legislature
meets, when. should this right of salpc