St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-26
- = FIVE CENTS. wv. 90.

ioi park purposes. The cOnSidera-
t1on OF this deed is $500. Two lots
were acquired by condemnation, and
no deed was given. There are fourteen
lots lying In the southeast corner of
the the park which were purchased In
IosV, In pursuance of chapter 103, of the
Special Laws of 1889. For these lots
only small portion of the purchase
price was paid at the time. The bal
ance amounting to $105, 900, was secured
by purchase mortgages, payable in ten
equal annual installments, without In
terest. Four installments, amounting
to $4,000, have been paid, leaving un-
paid at this time $63, 900. The city is
paying these mortgages at the rate OF
SlO,5OO year. Aside from these mort
cages, amounting now to $63, 600, the
title of the city is free and unincum-
bered, excepting the lien given TO bond
holders by the laws authorizing the
acquisition.
In reviewing the decisions, Mr. Rock
wood in his brief recited a number of
the same decisions used by Judge Flan-
drau, some of them being as follows:
In the case of Farnham VS.. Thomp-
son in the 34th Minn. $780, the deed con-
tained the language, For the purpose
of erecting a church thereon only"
The court held that an unqualified fee
passed by the deed. l have not over
looked the case of Flaten VS.. The City
of Moorhead, in the 81 Minn SIS That
was donation to the city where the
deed of gift contained the following
language: Said tract of land hereby
conveyed to be forever held and used
as public park The court held that
1T was the duty of the city to hold the
land for park purposes, and that it
had no right to divert the land from
that use. The court says. however,
1t Is not incumbent upon US at this
time to determine the precise nature
of the estate conveyed by this instru-
ment, whether a mere easement was
acquired by the village, or an estate
on condition or in trust" In other
words, the court in the Flaten case
held merely that the land was held by
the city for a specific purpose, and
that the city was not authorized to
| divert the land from the specific use.
1t did not hold that there was any re-
version in the grantors, nor that the
use could not be changed by Iegisla-
tive authority. The Minneapolis park
laws, section 13 of the Act of 1888 and
section II of the Act of 1889 contain
this provision:
The lands which may be designated
and obtained under the provisions of
this act shall remain forever for parks
| and parkways for the use of all in
habitants of said city, subject to such
| rules and regulations as the board of
| park commissioners may prescribe"
| This language creates a public use;
| the city is vested with the title for
| the benefit of the public
| A capitol building would, of course
| be an imposing and ornamental struct-
rue. 1t would not interfere with any
ones enjoyment of his private prop
| erty, and If it did not there would be
| no ground for an individual complaint
| 10 It know of any principle upon
! VIII ch tho abutter can complain of any
4 use that is made of a public park by
/ legislative authority, provided it does
not violate the terms of the grant or
! dedication, so long as his enjoyment of
his own property is not interfered with
4 And In the Pine City case our supreme
court fully recognizes the power of the
Legislature to legaliZe what without leg
| islative authority would be a public
nuisance. A capitol building placed in
! Loring park would certainly not inter-
fere with the u sc or enjoyment of pri-
| vate property adjacent. On the con-
| trary, it would tend to enhance it's
| value. There might be a difference,
| possibly, in individual tastes as to the
desirability of living in the immediate
| presence of state capitol. Some de-
| sire the greatest degree of privacy in
the location of a private dwelling, but
/ cannot conceive that any one could
| consider a state capitol generally an
undesirable thing in a neighborhood.
The state will hardly declare itself or
it's capitol to to be a common nuisance,
and the use of small portion of the
park for such a building would not be
a substantial diversion of the park from
it's present use. Nearly the whole area
of the park would be still open and
available for the same purposes as
| now. When done by the authority of
| the state, no one would, in my judg-
ment, have any ground for complaint
The case would be entirely different IL
| the land had been donated to the city,
| or If it had been merely dedicated for
a limited use.
| Concluding, Mr.. Lockwood said: MY
| conclusion is that the title of Loring
| park is held in fee by the city of Min
neapolis for public use, and that the
city can make any disposition of the
land which the legislature, represent
ing the public, may authorize or sane
ton. The acceptance of deed would
give such sanction. The land is, how
ever, subject to the lien of the mort
cages and bonds which 1 have men
toned and of the holders of these Sc
curities cannot be divested of their
| ri OH tc bNrY Of
unless by their own consent"
OFFERS A BILL.
Judge Daniel Fish supplemented the
brief read by Mr.. lockwood by stat
ing that it would require legislation to
carry out the proposition made. 1t
would also require a vote of the people.
He had prepared rougn draft of q
bill. He read the bill, an extract of
| which is as follows:
"A bill for an aet to provide for the
removal of the seat of government Of
the state of Minnesota, from the city
of st. Paul to the city of Minneapolis
by vote of the people" The body of
the bill is rather loosely drawn, as was
admitted by Judge Fish. and provides
that the capitol may be removed when
the conditions therein named should
be complied with. One of these con-
ditions is to the effect that the city Of
Minneapolis shall before June /, 1885,
make to the state good and sufficient
deed of a tract of land, containing
thirty-eight acres, situated in that
city and known as Loring park. The
deed to convey an absolute title in fee
simple, clear of any incumbrance and
subject to the condition that the land
revert to the city as though the con-
| veyance had not been made, in case
the state shall abandon the tract in the
future. The bill also provides for
delivering an abstract of the title to the
park TO the attorney general for the
| purpose of examining the title to the
land AID to state within three months
after what membranes there may
be upon the park property. After
finding what liens there are, by reason