The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-08-15

st. Cloud objected to because IL would De
an innovation, a plan not adopted hereto,
and one that would not benefit the state.
At the present moment there are just
enough swamp lands surveyed to fill the
various railroad grants. Should the state
arbitrarily set apart all the swamp lands
in a given territory it would only give
other companies who have the right to
select. corresponding advantage, and 1
wish to lay especial stress on this fact
The state can only select even numbered
sections for its grant to state institutions,
limitation from which there is no escape.
AS | have before observed, the law pro-
vides That it shall be the duty of the
governor to execute, on behalf of the state,
deeds of conveyance, etc The responsi-
bility is placed on him by the law.
The company now desires to go on make
selections as rapidly as possible, close up
its grant, and in so doing it will work to
the advantage of the state, as the residuary
legatee under the constitutional amend
ment of 1881, as it is therein provided that
all lands remaining after existing grants
have been filled shall revert to and become
the property of the state
l believe if all the companies would
speedily close up their grants the state
would derive a greater benefit therefrom
than it will if it attempts to fill the state
institution grant by selecting, as the ex-
pense of so doing will involve an outlay
of at least 100000.
think if this company would present
might. with the greatest propriety, execute
such conveyance, you auditor and land
commissioner being completely abSolved
from all responsibility by the terms of the
law. AS | conceive it your duty will be-
gin and end whenever a sufficient record
Is made ftsour office of this executive act.
Such a course has already been sane
toned by long years of precedence, will
be simply just to this company and work
no hardship or loss to the state.
Yours very truly
W. w. BRADEN. Land Com.
- State of Minnesota,
Auditors Office,
ST. Paul, Sept. g. 1891
Hon 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 to the Minneap-
Oils and St Cloud Railroad Company,
Hinckley branch. under legislative acts of
Feb. II, 1865, and March s. 1869
L do not fully agree with you in your
views. In referring to the opinion Of the
supreme court in Minneapolis and
St Cloud Railroad Company vs.
Duluth and Winnipeg, defendant, and
Company, intervenor. 18th Mimi, page
1Oi, you say that the court incidentally
alludeS to the fact that the state may make
the selections. The language used strikes
me as rather mphatic-"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
Wlthstanding the grant to plaintiff the
state mad right to grant any of its
swamp lands to any one else, provided only
1t retained enough to fill plaintiffs grant"
This l think one of the reasons why plant
III lost the case; otherwise why should it
appear in the syllabus?
L cannot by any means consider this Ian
guaSe of the supreme court as incidental
and even if did, l still consider it of
Importance; in fact much so that the
question has occurred to me why the proper
steps should not be taken to set aside
the deeds already issued to your road con-
veyinS the swamp lands selected by it I'M
der the law of 1863. If your grant con-
lined 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 ap-
prevail of the state; but as your grant
does not contain this Imitation I think it
would be the duty of the state to step in
and see to it that state instiuions being SO
limited. are protected, so as to give them at
least an even chance with your road in Sc
lectlng from the even numbered sections.
| do not konw 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 institutions are
entitled to. The investment might be a
good one, and as the state will in all
probability be involved in this expense
sooner or later, better incur it while the
area to select from is large, than wait
until it becomes curtailed by the filling of
your grant.
1t occurs to me that the best way out of
this dilemma would be to postpone action
until the legislature prescribes the proper
method, and approprates the necessary
funds for carrying it out
L nave enQeaNOrCd in these lines tO oixa
you some idea Of the difficulties | meet
in coming to a conclusion in this matter
Shortly. when a little more at leisure than
at present, | will address a letter to the
attorneN-general, and with his assistance
hope TO be able to adopt a stand Should
he be of your opinion, that | am absolved
by the law of 1863 from all responsibility in
the matter, it will probably simplify mat
tiers considerably, but even if his opinion
should coincide with yours | would hest
tate to assume that the custodian of the
state lands is absolved from all RESPONSE
biHty in a matter that 1 cannot help think
ing must be of considerable importance to
the state. Yours very truly,
A. HERMANN, Auditor
State of Minnesota,
Auditors Office
st. Paul, Oct. 5, 1891.
Hon. Moses L. Clapp, Attorney General:
Dear Sir-The Great Northern Railroad
Company is DESTROYS of filing the grant to
Hinckley branch, under legislative act of
March ), 1859
Under decision of supreme court a.
Mimi. 10l, lands to fill this grant may be
selected from the even as we'll as the odd
numbered sections, and the right of selec-
ton not being given to the grantee be-
longs to the state.
have had some difficulty in arriving at
decision in this matter, and to aid me in
removing my doubts the railway comnanv-
through its land commissioner Hon. w "
Braden, under date of Sept. s. 1891 adj
dressed to this office a letter, a synopsis of
which | give to you. He stated that the
company had completed it's road and Sc
lected in the usual way about one hundred
and twenty-five thosand acres of the four
hundred and twenty-five thousand acres
granted, that it is now desri-
Gus of making selections as ran
its grant and that in so doing the state
Will derive greater benefit than by attempt
ing to fill the state institutions grants as
mat would involve the state in a consd-
cradle expenditure of money.
Furthermore, it is suggested that the
state auditor and eX-ofcio land commits
sioner would be absolved from all respcn-
siblity under the terms of the law and
that his duty begins and ends in recording
deeds which, under the law, it is the duty
of the governor to execute on behalf of tho
state.
My opinion is that the state having in
this instance, and in this instance onl,
the right of selection, it ought to be worth
something to the state as well as ia the
failoaa company. and that the interests
OF the state would be best subserved nv
hrst ming the grants to state institutions
even at considerable outlay, more es
pec1ally as their grants are limited 70 80,