The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-07-14
WINS ITS LAND SUIT
NORTHERN PACIFIC SUCCESSFUL
BEFORE THE U. S. COURT OF
APPEALS
QUESTION Of THE TERMINUS
Held to Be at Ashland, and Not Du-
luth, as the Governments At
tOrneys Claim Decision That
carries With 1t a Large Number
of Acres of Land-Judge Lochren
Sustained 81

- 0 i1IeuEz SEateS circuit court OF
Appeals the Northern Pacific Railway
company has won Its government land
grant case, witch Involves it's title to
more than millien acres of land in
wisconsin. The title of the action is the
United States of America, appellant,
against The Northern Pacific Railroad
The Northern Pacific Railway Company
ana Edwin H. McHenry and Frank G.
Blgelow, as receivers of the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company.
although the decision was handed down
Iast Monday it was not made public I'M
I'll yesterday. The hearing was before
the ehtlre bench, which comprises Judges
Caldwell, Sanborn and Thayer, and the
opinion, although written by Judge San
born, was concurred in by both of his
colleagues. The case was argued by Eu-
gene Hay for the appellant, and James
b. Kerr for the appellee
The appeal was taken from a decision
OF Judge Lochren, of the United States
circuit court, in an action to void pat
ent to a tract of land in Wisconsin which
was issued to the Northern Pacific road
by the United States land department. it
being alleged by the appellant that this
grant was issued under the erroneous
impression and mistaken belief that 1t
was within the congressional grant of
the company. The tract in question was
claimed by the company and granted to
1t in lieu of an unavailable tract which
was within the place limits of the orig
lnal grant, provided that grant could be
construed as extending to Ashland, Wis,
and 1t was on that point that the case
hinged
The original act under which the rail
road company operated III securing the
land was an actEof congress of July 2
1@G4, whereby certain gentlemen, who
afterward entered into the corporation
Known as the Northern Pacific Railway
company, secured certain lands to aid
in the construction of a railroad and
telegraph line frOm-a point on Lake Su-
peTior TO a point on Puget sound. The
Northern Pacific company began the
construction of its road, and on Jan. 1,
| 1872, entered into a contract with the
Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad
company whereby it secured an undivided
half interest in the road already built
from ThompsOns on the Northern Pacific
road, to Duluth and established a con-
nection with the latter city. Then, in
1851, 1882 and 1886, the Northern Pacific
company Abandoned it's use of the Lake
OUpcIAOI q hISStSSlppl ROAD ana Dullt It's
own road to Ashland, and in 1884 that
city was designated as the Eastern ter
minus of the road. After the customary
proceedings this action of the directors
of the company was accepted by the
land department. and from 1884 to 1885
the railroad company and the govern
ment held Ashland as the Eastern ter
| minus of the road, and the portion of
the line from Thompson to Ashland as
part of the road constructed under the
act Of 1864. Owing to the fact that the
lands along this portion of the road were
unavailable the company was granted in
lieu thereof certain lands in Wisconsin,
Aug. Il, 1896, the secretary of the in
terror raised the point that the Eastern
terminus of the Northern Pacific road
was originally. Duluth, and the action to
void the patent TO the lands referred to
was brought as stated.
Judge Sanborn says in his decision:
This is a suit to void patent issued
| to the Northern Pa 2i1c Railroad COM
| pany, appellee, by the land department
! of the United States. The land depart
ment is quasi-judicial tribunal and a
| patent IS the judgment of that tribunal
upon the questions presented and a con-
! Yeyance in execution of the judgment
| When it is attacked, two questions are
| presented. They are: Did the deDart-
! ent and to determine the question which
conditioned its issue, and was its judg-
ment induced by fraud, mistake OF fact
| or error in law? The rule broadly stated
| IS that the land department has juris-
| dlction over every case in which the
| control and disposition of land is in
! trusted to its care and that its Judgment
| In such a case, whether right or wrong
| conveys the legal title to the patentee
| and its valid unless voided for error, mis-
! take or fraud.
| The land in dispute in this case and
| the tract of land in the place limits of
| the grant to this company in lieu of
! which a patent to this land was issued
were entrusted. to this department for
| disposition and EpoWer granted to it
| and the duty imposed upon it to hear
and determine the question who was en-
! titled to the conveyance of this land to
/ the government. It's judgment was there
| fore not within the jurisdiction and its
patent conveyed the legal title.
| The second question is: Was this pat
| ent void because the decision on which
! it was based induced by error, fraud or
mistake of fact? The court of equity
| patent in a case in which the action of
| the department has resulted from a clear
error of law. There is no general APP
| peal from the officers of the land de-
| cannot review the decisions of questions
| of fact rendered by those officers in the
| absence of convincing proof that they
were induced by fraud or mistake. It is.
| however, conceded that if the eastern
! terminus of the railroad is in the city of
Ashland, in the State of Wisconsin this
1
| claim of the government is that the land
| department was mistaken In holding that
| Ashland was its eastern terminus, when
! it should have held that this terminus
was at Duluth or Thompson, in the State
| of Minnesota, or at Superior, in the State
| of Wisconsin. In reaching a decision
that resulted In the issue of this patent
! the land department must have decided
| two queStionS-one a question of law,
| whether or not the railroad company
had the right under its charter to select
| Ashland as it's eastern terminus. and the
other question of fact whether or not 1t
did so select
The court then goes extensively into
the argument that was made by counsel
for the government and lays particular
stress on the fact that the railroad COM
pany acted in good faith in extending its
line and that no attempt had ever been
made to wrest from 1t the title to the
lands, until long after the road had been
put in operation and the lands had be-
come valuable Continuing the opinion
| says: .A-
Our conclusion upon the facts of this
record is that the Northern Pacific Rail-
road company never selected any other
place than Ashland as the eastern ter
| point on Lake Superior. in the city of
Ashland as it's eastern terminus in
| 1884; that this selection was accepted and
approved by the land department; that
/ it had not forfeited or lost the power of
selection when this choice was made,
and that this poifit, In the city of Ash
land is the eastern terminus Of the
Northern Pacific railroad.
The questions presented In this case
are of considerable moment, although
ticular suit are small. 1t Is important
to settlers and OCCUPANTS of lands within