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

OF the grant, and wheth. I
er not only the road should be {
prevented from securing other ,
lands but that it should be {
caused to reconvey to the state
the 2o2,958 acres already re.
ceived. The application of the
company for the certifying of a
deed for other lands claimed un.
der the grant the auditors ref
erence Of the request to the at
torney general. the hearing in
which the road attorneys took
part and the attorney generals
opinion that the auditor was re-
quired to certify the list to the
governor is recounted. The au-
ditor, however, dissented from
the attorney general and obtain
tanned an opinion from w. P.
Warner as to whether the act of
1885 conf1icted with the consti-
tutiona) amendment of 1881. MIR. |
Warner held that the company
had never done anything to earn
the grant anterior to the adop-
ton of the constitutional amend
ment in relation to swamp lands
and that it was competent for
the state to resume the grant.
The amendment, he claimed,
took from the legislature the
power to pass the legislation of
1883 curative of the acts of the
company. The act of 1885 it is
asserted conflicted with the con-
stitutional amendment. The
contention that the railroad from
Duluth to Tower via Two Har-
bors did not meet the require
ments Of the conditions of the
grant, because it was not the
most direct route as compelled
by the terms of the grant. The
auditor adds:
lin the opinion thus given by
Mr.. Warner I feel obliged to con
cur to a large extent, and in view
of all the circumstances I would
most respectfully urge the state
Legislature to take such action as
may lead to the settlement of
the whole question of the valid
ity of the swamp land grant to
the Duluth and Iron Range Rail.
road company by the courts.
The value of the interests invol.
we'd cannot be less than $3,000,-
600, and if this company is not
legally entitled to these lands
the people of the state should
d know it and the school fund
should receive the benefit.
trust this matter will receive
y early consideration at the hands
of the state legislature"
The auditor then calls atten
ton to the constitutional provi-
sion that all state lands must be
sold at public auction. AS the
timber has been considered par
of the realty, it has been simi
Y larly disposed of, and the state
- auditor now raises the question
- whether the mineral is not als(
part of the realty and should
J therefore be disposed of in like
manner. The Rockefellers, the
Il Minnesota Iron company ant
Carnegie hold 80 per cent of the
mining contracts on state land:
. Including the famous Lone
u Jack with it's great ore deposit
. and these were all secured a
l. private sale, so that should hi:
contention be approved there
Il would be a general shaking ut
in mineral contracts.
In speaking of state mlnera
9 leases Mr.. Dunn says:
- Il am of the opinion that the
. mineral land law of the state is
Il defective in so far as it provide:
/, for the mining and disposition
u of iron ore and other minerals
~ in and upon state lands. The
. constitution provides (see sec
ton 2, Article WIZ "that ne
% portion of said lands shall be
So sold otherwise than at public
20 sale," while the mineral lane
ol law of 1889, as we'll as the
= amended law of 1895, under
q which all the existing mining
il contracts have been issued, pro-
e vides manner of dlsposing o:
l. the iron ore contained in the
S lands by a method which is in
} effect a private sale thereof. II
}, has been repeatedly held by the
courts that the timber on the
= lands is an Integral part of the
!. realty. and with this IN view and
t to comply with the above men
t toned constitutional provision,
: the law regulating the sale OF
3 timber specifically provides for