Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1894-12-13

Sort Of SNoW You See It. Now You Don't'
Doinss which Cost Both the Canal Com.
pnny and the Settlers a Lot OF Money,
Through the Consequent Litigation
Which L. Settled on acknowledgement
nal Grant MoH.irous.
DETROIT, Dec. lathe victory of some
thousand Upper Peninsula homesteaders
| in the United States supreme court after
their long fight against the Portage Lake
Canal company, in which their titles to
! their homcsteads were ho;iy contested for
! six years, is the subject of congratulation
on all sides throughout Michigan. Don
NJ Dickinson. attorney for the homestead
ers. was asked by an Associated Press re-
porter to give briefly the main circum-
stances OF the long litigation. Mr.. Dick
inson Is naturally elated over the re-
suits he gave a brief resume Of the mat
ter as follows:
''ConCress in 1855 granted to the state
for railroad building purposes six sections
per mile, on each side of the proposed
routes. OF these routes a line named in
the act from O3tonagon 10 the Wisconsin
state line was never built Because o.
this the federal land department and the
state government assumed that it had
reverted to the government. So in
lSS6 congress made another grant 20 the
state 10 enable it 20 build the Portage
Lake canal
Settled Upon the Land.
The canal company selected under its
grant a portion OF this old railroad grant
and the state certified it TO the company
In the meantime. settlers were coming
a.
some go families settled upon the land
in question in Ontonagon, KeweenaS,
Marquette, Beraye and other counties
Whercupon the canal company, in getting
ready to realize upon the lands, through
the timber and otherwise. brought eject
ment suits ayains, many of the home
steasiers. The latter Were defeated in tho
United States circuit court at Marquette
III test tri1l before Judge Seve-ns and
executions were issued for the eviction of
the settlers. At this juncture / entered
the case. / took the position that the
canal company could not make a valid
selection upon the old railroad grant;
that the state could not confer the lands:
that the interior department could not
certify the lands TO the canal company
under its grant. because the original
grant vested the title in the state for rail-
road purposes and it could not be di-
vested OF it, except by forfeiture
Granted a New Trial.
''Ci-cuit Justices jackson and Brown
"a. in the case with Judge Scverns and
granted us new trial Judge Severns
dissentcd and never assented TO the rul-
ings Of the other two judges, but on the
new trial directed a vepiict for the de-
PENDANTS Chone>teaders) on the opinions
OF the other justices. The homesteads Of
some 40 families Were involved in this de-
cision. The canal company appealed and
the decision now rendered By the supreme
court confirms the title of every settler
who was on the land May l.IsSS, the date
on which all settlers became secure in
their possession under tine fosfeiture act of
congress, passed in 1sS.'. The defense
sought, with eventual success first, to de-
stroy the canal conpany's title, as being
unlawfully conveyed to it BY the state
and by the federal government; second.
to confirm the title of the settlers under
the forfeiture act of 1889. Another case,
representing some $40 homesteads, was
decided against the settlers By Judge Sew
ems on the ground that the state and fed
eral governments had relinquished their
title before the canal company selected its
lands.
Appealed from the Decision.
MY contention as to that was that the
state only released 1noiety of the titles
and appealed from Judge Scvern's de-
cision. The supreme court has now sus-
tanned this contention and declared these
800 settlers entitled to an undivided half
interest in the lands upon which they
settled. The canal company will now be
confronted with damage suits instituted
by the settlers FOR the restitution Of the
property it had taken away"
Mr.. Dickinson denounces the original
grant as a monstrous proceeding, which
gave away for practically nothing an
estate which pays dividends on a capital
Of eco. GO, GO, the company, as stated havin 2
constructed the ditch FOR about $500, 900
and sold it to the state. while it still
claims the Land which was to pay for its