St. Paul daily globe., 1896-04-29

made on its behalf.
1t Is difficult to perceive how the fact that
the state has made no earlier assertion of
claim to the said tract, many now operate to
Its prejudice in the present proceeding. 1t
will. Of course, be remembered in this con-
nection, that save on occasional exceptions
like the present. the state is dependent upon
the official field notes of surveys conducted.
wholly under the supervision of federal
authority.
The application for a hearing is then re-
hearsed, and 1t is contended that the depart
ment officers Will not deny sovereign state
SO reasonable demand as an opportunity to
produce evidence IN support of it's claim to
a given body or tract of land. This is mat
ter Of the adjustment of grant between two
soyereigns.
1t was certainly the intention of congress
to convey to the state all the swamp lands
lying within her borders not previously ap-
propriated. The duty devoives upon the secre-
tary OF the interior to see to it that the state
receives all the lands to which It is entitled
under the grant. Whatever rules of proce-
dure the secretary may adopt and promulgate
Tor the proper dispatch Of the business of his
department, they should not be permitted,
especially IN case of so great Importance
as the present, to serve as obstacles in the
way OF just administration of the grant or
TO defeat the meritorious claims of the state.
Inc question OF the swampy or non-swampy
character of the tract is easily determined
and that, too, with little delay in time and
slight expense. A few months at most will
sufnee to determine the question once for. all.
so rar as the state is concerned If the land
Is swamp, she wants it; If it is not of that
character, she will not get it.
While the assignments of error are numer-
Gus, and no doubt in excess of what the
rules of the department require, they NAV
hcc cr,,s,
First-In holding that the land in question
mad been appropriated by William Craig as
against the state
Second-ln holding that the affidayits were
insufficient to warrant a hearing
Thfrd-In holding that by accepting the list
OF selections made in 1885, the state thereby
debarred herself from ever after laying claim
to any other lands as swamp.
Fourth-In holding that the prima facie
case made by the field notes, showing the
condition of the land in 1850 is not over
thrown by the afidavits filed.
Fffth--In holding that the application Of
the state should be denied because not made
within two years from the adjournment of
the legislature, after notice by the secretary
Of the interior to the governor.
Sixth-In holding that the state is now con-
cluded by laches from asserting it's title to
the land.
On the first error, 1t is argued that the
decision of the secretary in the La Chance
case in 1886 only makes field notes prima
facie evidence to the character of the land
and that there is no suggestion that the
states claim can be barred by any act of a
private citizen subsequent to the date of the
grant.
1t is contended on the second assignment of
error that the state should not be placed upon
the level of the private citizen contesting
those rights, but even If it were. the afi-
davits are sufficient, it being well known
that the past fifteen years have witnessed q
remarkable lessening Of rainfall In that re-
gion, attended with a general shrinkage Of
water supply, even affecting in an apprecia-
BILE degree the water level of the great lakes
1t Is no exaggeration to say that the surface
area Of the water of Minnesota has decreased
during that period not less than 65 per cent
Many of the shallow lakes throughout the
state have completely disappeared, and many
Of the streams are destitute Of water during
a considerable portion of the year.
To say that this has not been without
marked effect upon the swamps and marshes
of the state is to refute common experience
and observation.
The affdavits of Auditor Dunn, Frank
PIummer, R. H. L. Jewett, Charles Keith and
R. F. Mcclellan are summarized Mr.. Plum
mer says that IN 1887 the tract bore distinct
and positive evidence and indications of
and overfowed than at the time OF the sur
vey.
Your department will not certainly meas
ure the rights of the state by any stricter
rule than that which governs private con-
testants. Then follows a scientific essay on
swamps.s It says: Swamps may dry up and
become tillabIe land. That is going on every
day before our eyes, but the converse Is not
true "A swamp in q new and unsettled coun-
+ry ;s not tha growth or formation of a few
years. It's origin is very remote, and gener-
ally due to geological formation. Natural
depressions in the surface Of the earth be-
come filed with water and the remains OF
vegetable growth, and thus form a swamp.
"a tract or region of low, spongy land so
saturated with water as to be unfit for tllage
commonly abounding with certain species OF
trees and coarse grasses wet bog; morass;
marsh"
Century Dictionary-"Swamp."
It. is safe to say that no swamp now exists
in the state of Minnesota on soil which was
dry land in 1860. Wherever there is natur-
ally formed swamp now existing In that state
there has been a swamp for a thousand
years.
II is therefore repugnant to all experience,
contrary to all reason, and violative OF every
principle of Justice rule of law to hold, as
did the honorable commissioner. that the
statements of atlantis are mere conclusions or
opinions not amounting to an allegation or
charge.
The winter survey Is defended, together
with the affidavits. in a long argument, and
the evidence Of the field notes directly COM
batted by affidavits directly applying to the
s'4o' In question, while numerous cases are
cited against the autocratic position taken by
the interior department.