Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1899-02-18
REvERSES HIMSELF.
From the St. Cloud Times.

In the Times or monday, IN speak
ing of the decision Of the Secretary
of the Interior affirming the ruling of
the register and receiver, in what is
known as the Ireland land cases. y
this mild little comment was printed:
In referring to a decision of the
st. Cloud land Office, the Journal
Press always mentions it as the af-
irmation Of the decision of Register
Bruener. All rulings, as is we'll
known, are by the register and re-
ceiver. An interesting incident con-
nected with this decision, in the light
of the above, is the fact that when
the matter was first discussed in the
local Office, the register and chief
clerk were strongly inclined to favor
the contention of the contestants:
that Archbishop Ireland was the
agent OF the company under the con-
tracts, and therefore not entitled to
purchaser under the first contract,
and a purchaser under the second.
The land Office decision was written
up by the register on these lines.
Last evening ex Register Bruener
printed letter in the Journal Press,
column and half in length, in re-
ply to thu above. AS will be noticed
the Times reference merely covered
the question of the land officers
position in arriving at this decision.
The ex- Registers letter goes outside
of this, takes up the merits of the
case, drags in matters foreign thereto,
and exhibits an unaccountable bitter
pess and spleen towards Archbishop
Ireland.
We would not dignity this most re-
markable letter with reply, we're it
not for the false light in which it
places the honored prelate who is SO
Willy attacked, and for the further
reason that silence would be con-
strued as an admission of the truth
of the ex- Registers statements.
The ex-Receiver did not say that
'Ireland's pull in Washington would
give him the lands;'' nor did the ex-
Register ever say, in the presence of
the ex-Receiyer, that he did not care
a d IN about Ireland's pail, in
Washington &c. The fact that he
insists that he did use such language,
is not to his credit as q gentleman,
and was an intimation of corruption |
on the part of the Department of the
Interior officials, under whom he was
serving,
The ex Register asserts that he de
clared: II will decide the case ac
cording to my judgement, based up
on the testimony, precedents," &c,
and then proceeds to show that he
outraged his judgement" in his de-
cision; that he violated "the spilit |
and intent of the, homestead laws"
that he, by that decision aided in
"squandering the public domain, heri-'
tage of the common peoples that |
there were no equities in the case of |
the claimant for whom he decided |
&c, &c. Is it not strange that a |
gentleman with the imperious will of I
the ex Register should allow depart
mental presidents, or even the law
itself, to control his judgement"
Why not have made presidents of |
his own? Other registers have done
this.
Several commissioners of the gen
eral land Office and secretaries of the
Interior, men of high legal standing,
have held that the act of March 3,
1887, entitled purchasers of land
from land grant companies to buy
the same from the government in
cases where the land grants were for
feited; but ex-Register Bruener de-
clares: "The act of March 3, 1887,
never could have so contemplated.
SO held by the department"
A mere difference of opinion between
the ex-Register and the best legal
talent in the Department of the In
terror for several terms. Which is
entitled to most weight?
It should be noticed that the ex-
Register not only insists that his own
decision was unjust and great
wrong upon the common people, /;
but he also claims that the Secretar-
es of the Interior are equally errone-
0us.
In justice to Archbishop Ireland's
position in the matter and in view of
he malicious Misrepresentation of
he ex- Register, as to this prelate, we
will explain very briefly the effect OF
he act of March 3. 1887, under which