The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1897-01-08

he auditor had no power to exc.
ute such REIMBURSEMENT, that
,ower remaining with the gov
'rnor.
"In view Of the fact that this
Mountain Iron mine property is
;oday valued at more than 49,
100, 900 which is a conservative
and al amount exceed
ng the entire accumulations Of
the state school fund to date. II
have, in regular course of Office
work, investigated the facts at
tending the REIMBURSEMENT of
Of these lands as shown by the
records of this office and the
United States district land Office
at Duluth, MIMI, which shows
as follows:
The land in question, which
now includes all the land owned, |
occupied and operated as part Of
the Mountain Iron mine on the
Mesaba range, was selected by
the state as indemnity school
land i'll Duluth selection list No.
9 on February 9, 1884. This Sc.
lection lis was in proper form
and in conformity with the rules
of practice of the general land
Office in force at the time the Sc
lection was made. During the
year 1887 the commissioner of
the general land Office promul-
gated new rules to govern such
selections, but they were not
applicable to selections already
made or to lists filed previously.
ION January 26, 1883, the
then state auditor, Mr.. Braden.
caused a new selection list. No.
IL, to be made to take the place
and supersede the lists Nos. 1 to
II previously filed, together
with a REIMBURSEMENT signed by
State Auditor Braden Of all the
selections of land made in the
aforesaid lists Nos. l to II, and
this new list No. IL, together
with the aforesaid relinquish
ment, was filed in the Duluth
land office by the then deputy
state auditor, H. G.. Griswold,
and on March Is, 1883, the com.
missioner of the general land Of
fee agreed to accept the same.
1.-The land on which the Noun.
tain Iron mine is now situated
was duly selected as above stat
ed, and included in list No. g.
which was one the lists of land
selections re]inquished, but this
land was omitted from the new
| list No. IL, so that it was re.
linquished as described and no
reseiected, the state school funG
thus losing this exceedingly val
liable piece of property. I
should be noted, however, tina
at that time, while it was gener
ally Supposed that there existed
large deposits of iron orc on thu
), Mesaba range, it Was not though
that the ore was Of much value
as it differed greatly from tina
on the Vermilion and other rang
es. Still I am inclined to thinl
that there was serious error O
judgment or a grave mistake
made in emitting these Mountain
; Iron tracts from the new se1ec
, ton list, and 1t has proveda yer,
costly error to the state.
''There is positively no ques
, ton of the validity of the selec.
ton of these Mountain Iron min
lands as made in and by tn
aforesaid list No. 9, as the com
missioner Of the general land of
fee on January rs, 1888, in re-
ply to a letter from State Audi
tor Braden that it was though
better to leave all the lists a.
they were and not to file a sub
stitute list as Mr.. Braden pro
posed. It was then admitted
and is beyond dispute that thu
list No. 9 was in proper form
and in conformity with the rule!
and practice of the general lant
office.
"This being so, the question
. arises whether the rellnquish
ment of the selections made ir
any by said indemnity schoo
; land list No. 9 by State Auditor
Braden, on Jan. 26, 1883, hac
any force and effect; if in fact i
was a REIMBURSEMENT. It nigh
be properly asked whether the
state auditor had the power ano
the authority to execute such 6
REIMBURSEMENT, and whether the
sole power of doing so did moi
rest with the governor of the
state, who did not execute any
REIMBURSEMENT Of these lands or
T.