The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-11-15
WOULDnAVE WET FEET
DULUTH & IRON RANGE OBJECTION
TO THE STATES "sHORT
ROUTE,
STATES SURVEY ATTACKED

IN M10W1nteT, and That an EXAM
inRttOn of the Route In Summer
Shows That in Twenty-Six Miles
Miles of Bridges.
Arguments in the Duluth s. Iron Range
land grant case were continued yesterday
before Judge Lochren in the United
States circuit court. The suit involves q
large grant Of land claimed by the rail-
road company, while the state seeks to
have the grant set aside on the ground
that the road failed to comply with the
terms of the grant. The respondents ask
that the state be perpetually enJoined
from interfering with them and from sell
ing any of the timber on the land in
cluded in the grant.
Attorney Frank B. Kellogg pres ented
the main argument for the road. He re-
lated that the state had sent two sur
Veyors to run line between Duluth and
Basset Lake, which was considered to
be the most direct route. This was in
midwinter, 1898. According to Mr.. KEEL
logg, fully per cent Of this line, as sur
! Veyed, ran over marshy land and bogs,
on which, he claimed, it was impossible
| to construct a road. There was no ex-
animation for drainage, Mr.. Kellogg ar
gued, no tests for pits and only nine
soundings were taken. Later the railroad
| company also had this line surveyed.
Counsel stated that the company's sur
Veyors found many open lakes on the
route, and advanced the opinion that the
construction of road along this survey
was impossible. The company's. survey
ors had avoided the swamps and marshes
where possible, but, 1t was claimed, the
state surveyors ran lengthwise of these
swamps and lakes. On the line of the
state survey, Mr.. Kellogg declared that,
out Of twenty-six miles of road there
would have been necessary nine miles of
bridges.
In conclusion Mr. Kellogg declared the
contention of the state was a wild, Wis
lonary scheme. The Duluth & Iron Range
road had been in operation fifteen years,
he declared, and had fulfilled every re-
| quirement expected of It,
FORMER Attorney General Childs pre-
sented the arguments for the state. He
attacked the petition for injunction ask
ed by the respondents, asserting that 1t
must fall to the ground, as there had
peen an absolute failure of proof to sus-
NeNAA4 |@iS oAACSdlIOlS O1 IIl6 Dill. Tn6r6
| was no evidence, he said, that any mem
Der OF the state timber, commission had
ever made any threat Of an intention to
interfere with the timber on the grant,
pending Judgment Of a court of compe-
tent Jurisdiction. Mr.. Childs contended
| that the commission had no intention Of
harass1ng the respondents with number
! of suits, and that no such intention had
been shown. With regard to this phase
OF the case, Mr.. Childs claimed the 1udg-
ment of the court should be in favor of
the state. The real question at issue
according to Mr.. Childs, was whether or
not the road was entitled to the grant
! The state had made no overt act III this
connection, he argued and there was no
evidence to show whether or not there
was timber on the land in question. The
evidence positively showed, he claimed
that the timber commission never had
under consideration the act of 1897.