The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1896-10-08
Lind IS TO BLAME.
CONGRESS- Could Have Declared
the Hastings & Dakota
Grant Forfeited.
Why Didn't John Lind Act While
He Was Member, Of
Congress?

Congress?
The charges made by John Lind, the
Democratic-Populis candidate for gov
ernor of Minnesota, against ex-Gov.s
Merriam, Gov. Clough, Attorney Gen
eral Childs and others, in the matter
of the Hastings & Dakota Railway COM
pany, have demonstrated one fact very
clearly, and that is that if there is any
person in the State of Minnesota who
is responsible, more than another for
failure to protect the rights of the set
tiers on the lands claimed by the Hast
ings & Dakota Railway company, that
person is John Lind himself. He
stands convicted out of his own mouth,
as any one may learn VINO will read his
speech made Oct. / at Red Wing, of
the grossest negligence in the matter
of the interests of his constituents.
Review the facts and see if this is not
so.
Congress hestoWs a grant of land
upon the Hastings & Dakota Railway
company. The State of Minnesota ac-
cepts the trust SO bestowed, and later
the supreme court of this State de-
clares that this railroad company has
earned its grant and is entitled to
these lands. But in the meantime
many settlers locate on the lands with
in the Indemnity limits of the railroad
company7s grant, and when the COM
pany attempts to Dust them much liti-
CATION ensues. Now, the State being
merely trustee in the case cannot di-
vert the grant or declare forfeiture
of the lands. It cannot say to the
United States that it shall resume pos
session of all the lands not already con
veyed to the Hastings & Dakota Rail-
way company, because the State has no
power to SO dictate to the general gov
eminent. The only way in which the
unsolicited and unconveyed lands of the
company can be forfeited and made to
revert to the United States so that the
settlers thereon might secure their
homesteads is Tor congress to pass an
act of forfeiture. A forfeiture by the
State has no force or effect, as the
State is merely the agent acting be-
tween the United States government
and the railroad company.
Now, here was John Lind7s oppor-
tunltv. He was member of congress
at the time. He had been pretending
10 an active interest in the matter
on behalf of the poor settlers. He
knew all the circumstances, and he was
aware, as his letter to Attorney Cen
eral Childs shows, that the company
was attempting to select more lands to
fill, or help fill, its grant. At this
stage of the case Mr.. Lind declares
that he filed a protest with the secre-
tary of the interior against the ac-
ceptance of this list of selections. The
The mildness of this proceeding, COM
pared with the fury of Mr.. Lind in the
matter now, is worthy of notice.
There were three methods open to
Congressman Lind at that time, by
which, if he had been in earnest in his
professions OF protecting the settlers
on the Hastings & Dakota lands, he
might have very effectually done so.
Neither the State nor any State official
could do SO, but a member of congress
could. Mr.. Lind could have taken any
one OF these three courses: Firstly, he
could have introduced a bill into con-
gress FORGETTING the land grant of the
Hastings & Dakota Railway compay.
Secondly, he could have introduced
bill into congress protecting the rights
Of all settlers and squatters upon lands
by the Hastings & Dakota
Railway company. Or, thirdly, he
might have introduced joint resolu-
lion into congress directing the secre-
tarY of the interior not to accept any
more selection lists and not to certify
any more lands for the Hastings &
Dakota Railway company.
The opportunity was great one for
this friend OF the oppressed settler, but
lid he rise to it? No; Mr.. Lind did
none of these things, though they pre-
sented the only effective means Of re-
ieving the settlers, and means that
IS congressman he could readily have
used.
Why John Lind did not at that time |