Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1899-02-18
a 81 IS 81 81 II 81 y y y II u - u =
8 Bruener's Allegations.
y : And How Cloud Times Answered Them
4 ~ IS y = u 4 - = 4 - 4 = II S&s
SUSTAINs HIMSELF.
From the St. cloud Journal-Press.

| notice that ex-Receiver MacDon-
aid claims to be the author of the
local decision in the Ireland" case.
Ii is well known by the clerks in the
United States land off ce, that this is
not true, but that on the contrary, ex
Receiver Macdonald wanted to award
to Ireland even the lands embraced
in the first contract, because he
thought, as he expressed himself,
that on account of the pull" Ireland
had in Washington, he would be al
lowed to purchase all the land. | re-
piled to the ex-receiver, that did not
care d about Ireland's pulp in
Washington, that | would decide the
case according to my judgement
based upon the testimony and evil
dence and the presidents established
by the interior department IN such
cases and strongly intimated to the
ex-receiver. that if he was so disposed
he might write dissenting opinion.
In reference to the second contract,
| decided in favor of Ireland, not be-
cause the contract il a contract Of
purchase according to the rules of
law, as it would be held in any court
In the United States to be merely a
contract of agency or perhaps an
option in case the railroad company
would acquire title, but simply for
the reason tina: the interior depart
ment had placed a construction upon
this class of contracts under the act
of March 8, 1887, contrary to all rules
of law applicable to contracts affect
ing real estate and it was therefore the
duty of the local land office-it being
the lower court-to follow the decis
ions of the superior tribunal, to wit:
the secretary of the interior. This
position was so stated in my decision
for it reads upon this point verbatim
as follows:
The register and receiver would
fully agree with the protestants that
the contract is onlya contract of a
right to purchase, and not contract
of purchase, and also that it is a |
mere option and if no option, mere
contract of agency; if the department
had not continued this class of con-
tracts and held that the 5th section
Of the act of March 3, 1887, is a relief |
statute and should be literally con,
strued SO thatit may not fail in its
object, and that equitable rights may
be protected. That the word 'sold"
as used in said section, should be in
tended to embrace all bona fde
transactions between individuals and |
the company contemplating either a |
present OF future transfer of title.
While | was constrained under the
precedents established by the de-
partment to award the lands under
second contract to Ireland, am free
to say, that l did SO with great deal
of reluctance for the following rea-
sons:
First: Because the act of March 3, |
1887, never could have contemplated |
although SO held by the department
that railr2ad company could make |
q selection, invalid upon its face. and
then make contracts for the sale there
of, by which one person, in this case
-Ireland-could acquire fifty thousand |
acres Of the public domain, and reap
profit thereby exceeding one hun
dred thousand dollars. It was GER
tainly not the intent of congress, by
the passage of the act of 1887, to ac-
complish results of this character,
It is not the spirit and intent of the
homestead laws of the United States,
that the public domain, heritage of
the common people, should be
in that way and one per-
son should take $4,000 acres away
from them at $l.25 per acre and then
let this one person pocket the differ
ence between $1.25 per acre and IS
or 81 per acre, the price these lands
were contracted to be sold for by Ire
land.
Second. Because there were no
equitable features in the case, upon
which Ireland could ask for such a
favor or privilege, because he never
paid a dollar to the railroad company
and any expenses he might have had,
were amply repaid by lands he had
acquired. The equities were
therefore all on the side of the set
tiers.