The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-03-14
LAW0REAUX LEAKED.
- ~-a~
DECISION IN THE CHICAGO LAKE
FRONT CASE GIVEN OUT
PRIVATELY.
A NEW HEARING ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF THE LAND Of
FYCE ROUNDLY SCORED BY
SECRETARY BLISS.
EXPECT PEREMPToRY DISMISSAL.
cOnsin and Declines to Be Inter-
viewed.

WASHINGTON March ia sensa-
tional order repudiating acts Of the gen
eral land office in the Chicago lake front
case and which probably will be fol-
lowed Immediately by the peremptory
dismissal of Silas w. Lamoreaux, Of
Wisconsin. commissioner of the gen.
eral land office, was signed by Secre-
tary Of the Interior Bliss today The
order directs that all proceedings in
the case subsequent to the filing of
the application to locate Mckee scrip
on the lake front be rescinded and an
nulled and 1t orders new trial be-
fore the new commissioner, not yet
appointed, within thirty days after no.
tice to all parties.
Action is based on the purported
opinion Of Mr.. Lamoreaux given out
by him to one Of the parties in inter
est, three days before the time appoint
ed by himself for the formal announce
ment of the decision, and the notice to
the other interested parties. The land
on which it was proposed to locate
claims by means Of this scrip is in the
heart of the City Of Chicago and i'm
mensely valuable, estimates of its
worth ranging all the way from fifteen
to thirty million dollars.
The department today made the fol-
lowing official statement on the Chi
cago lake front matter:
On the 22d day of February, Secretary
Francis directed that judgment in the case
be suspended until the further order of his
department This order has been published.
The secretary was therefore informed that
no decision had been rendered. none appears
in the letter press book, where all decisions
are required to be copied prior TO promuIga-
ton. In response to a telegram from the
assistant attorney general asking Commits
sioner LamoreauX If he had given out all
opinion in the Chicago lake front case If
so, when and to whom, Mr.. Lamoreaux re-
piled:
"On the goth I signed opinion, and had
number Of copies made the same day, to be
given to the press on the 23d, which date l
had announced the decision would be pro-
mulgated. One Of the copies OF the goth
gave to party with permission for him to
use it after the decision was promulgated
but In no case to be used until promulga-
ton. This was done on the 10th. On the 22d
Secretary Francis suspended PRONUNCIATION.
IS. w. LAMOREAUX."
Although 1t does not appear to whom the
copy was given, yet, as Mr.. Lamoreaux did
not disclose the name of the person although
requested to do so. but reported merely that
he gave 1t to "a party it is to be presumed
that such party was not without interest in
the controversy. Moreover, before this de-
partment was advised that any decision had
been signed, counsel for the scrip holders re-
quested that such an opinion be promulgated
knowledge of the opinion is therefore tracea-
BILE to them.
The improperly of giving out COPY of
an unrendered, unpromulgated decision to one
OF the parties in controversy, in advance of
Its formal announcement, is too obvious to
require coment.
Mr.. Lamoreaux states that he gave the
copy TO a party three days in advance of the
time appointed by him for it's pronunciation
in the usual and proper way. Neither faith
nor credit can attach to opinion under
such circumstances.
Since it was never properly filed il was
deemed best to disregard it, and direct a new
trial. This was done. The law which justi-
fies the action of the department NAV be
n
and the decisions of its supreme court The
leading cases on the subject, knight VS. Land
Association, is found in 142 u. S R 6 mage
ITS, wherein Mr.. Justice Lamar says
The statutes, in placing the whole business
OF the department under the supervision of
the secretary, invests him with authority In
review, revise, amend annul, or affirm all
proceedings in the department having for
their ultimate object to secure the alienation
of any portion of the public land or adjust
ment OF private claims to lands with a Just
regard to the rights of the public and of
private parties. Such supervision may be ex-
ercised by direct orders or by review on ap-
peals. When proceedings affecting titles to
lands are before the department. the power
of supervision may be exercised by the SEQ
rotary whether these proceedings are called
to his attention by formal notice. or by ap-
peal, and the rules prescribed are designed
to facilitate the department in the disposition
OF business, not to defeat the supervision Of
the secretary"
The full text Of +he order cancelIing
the proceedings, signed by the secre-
tary this morning, follows:
ITO the Commissioner of the General
Land Office: Sir-It having been made
known to me that there is in your Office
what purports to be an opinion signed in the
matter Of the application of Matthias Ben
ner and Harvey NJ. Lafolette, to locate Nc
kee scrip on what is known as the lake
frcnt of Chicago, ILL.,, and that a copy OF
said paper has been delivered to one of the
parties TO the controversy, before its rem
dition and PRONUNCIATION, in fragrant dsre-
o
express order Of my predecessor and the
usual and just rules of procedure; now,
therefore, in the exercise of the discretion
and authority conferred upon me by law,
direct you to order a rehearing of such
application at such time as you may desig
nate, not later than thirty days from the
date hereof. and to Immediately notify all
parties in interest of this order, and of the
time fixed for the hearing.
'All orders and acts of your department
heretofore made or done in the matter OF
such application, are hereby rescinded, va,
Gated and annuled to the end that said ap-
plication may be heard de novo and true
and equal justice done between the parties.
Very respectfully
Cornelius n. Bliss.
Secretary"
The decision formulated and promul-
gated by Commissioner LamOreaux
and which resulted in today's scathing
rebuke, it is said at the department is
directly contrary to a decision rem
dered by him August 81, last, involv-
ing the same lands and identical, ex-
cept as to parties, with the present
case. This decision was rendered on
an application by Martin NJ Cooney
and Others to locate Mckee scrip on
identically TIE same ground. and, it is
said, under the same circumstances as
the present case. The application Of