The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1898-09-09

by cutting off all South of a line
East and West across
Polk County. No other boun-
Diary was mentioned or thought
necessary, or W as in fact or ever
will be necessary, because the
legislature had already establish.
ed the boundary of the territory
by law and any more talk on the
subject would be worse than
useless. If Iron county had
happened to be cut off the south
end Of st. Louis county instead
of the north. the conditions
would have been exactly the
same as those under which Nor.
man county has struggled along
since 1881. What would be
thought of an attorney who
would get up in a court and COM
plain that Norman county .o1
Lincoln county had no boundar.
les or that the boundaries were
insufficient? @
It was argued before the state
board that this new county Ct
Iron would be in a truly pitiable
condition. cut off at the line be-
tween Townships IS and 81,
without any boundary on: The
west, north or east. There
seemed to be a fea- that it would
float away across Rainy Lake. OF
Rainy river and become :slost
among the British possessions.
It was asserted that no. county
was ever SO poorly off for :
boundary as. the proposed coun.
ty Of Iron would be if the peti
ton was granted.
One Of the judges Of the Dis
Etrict Court Of this district said e
me, after examining the petitior
and the statute and being told
that the objection was made tha1
the description was not, sufieien1
that if an attorney should make
such an objection in his court
he should fell like:t telling him K
sit down. -. = =: >.. ...
The question of: the suficiency
of the description in this petition
was submitted to Frank B. KEEL
logg. of the firm Of Davis, Kel.
logg & Severance. and he gave
it as his opinion that. the. de.
scription was perfect. Mr.. Sew.
erance, of the the same firm,
agreed with Mr.. Kellogg. IS
: Mr.. Erwin. of st. Paul, assist
ant attorney general, told me
that, in his opinion, the descrip
ton was as plain as could. be
made, but that his opinion had
not been asked by the State
Board. ~+,'.s ~ +. @@ s.. 4. 81
?. G. Schmidt, fthis city, an
attorney in good standing and
present Republican member, of
the legislature, stated to me that
he had examined the petition
and chat, while he was in doubt
whether he would have voted for
division, yet he considered it a
high handed piece Of work for
the State Board to turn down
that petition and deny the peo-
pie the right to vote on the pro.
position upon any such flimsy
pretext;; that, in. his opinion,
there was absolutely no merit
whatever in the objection that
the description was not sufficient;
that he believed the intent 81 the
statute was complied with and
that any attempt to bound the
new county BY chasing around
the meandering Of lakes or rivers
or up one side and down the
other to furnish boun dairy,
would defeat the object of the
legislature, which was to rlain-
" define the territory that was
intended to constitute the new
county. Mr.. Schmidt also said
that, il that description il the
petition was not sufficient, it
would not be sufficient to de ].
scribe q piece Of land il . deed
as 1.-THE north half 81. Section
ten, Township fifty seven, range
fifteen west, ST. Louis county,
Minnesota, but thatit would be
equally necessary to commence.
at one corner and run around it.
John G. Williams, Of Duluth !,
On attorney whose honesty or.
ability will not be questlo ned by.
gave # as his opinion,
after . careful .examina lion Of.
the petition and the law that
ths descrip tion il the petition.