The Ely miner., 1899-03-08
BOUNDARY LINE.
Answer of Lake Coun, Y to County Attorney
Phelps.

i " Z.
county attorney of Lake county, to
the letter of County Attorney Phelps
Of st. Louis county, on the county
boundary dispute, is worthy of more
notice than has been given it, for
the point in dispute'is an important
one. 1t will be remembered that Mr.,
Phelps claimed that the change made
in the boundary line. by which 1000
acres of land in this county, includ-
ing the famous section 80, was trans
ferred from the one county to the
other, was unconstitutional. The
first was that the measure by which
the legislature made the change was
special legislation and therefore un-
constitutional, The second was that
the constitution provides that no
change in county boundaries shall be
made without vote of the people OF
the affected counties. Mr. Aubolee's
communication to Auditor Halden,
which was read before the county
board at its last meeting. at least
raises the question and shows that
there are two sides to it.
He claims that theold line, running
north from the mouth of knife river,
which Mr.. Phelps alleges to be still
the boundary line because Of tie in
validity OF the legislative action
changing it. could not be the bound
airy, because it divides quarter sec
tions and is therefore not reasonable.
AS TO the provision which prohibits
changing boundary lines withoutsub-
mitting the matter to the vote of the
people af the affected counties, Mr..
Aubolee submits with good show of
authority that this section of the
constitution has been yoided BY the
amendments to the constitution pro-
hibiting special legislation. Hequotes
the supreme court as saying that
there are no such limitations ON the
power Of the legislature at present.
AS to the question of special legis-
lation Mr.. Aubolee claims that the
act fixing the boundary was no special
| legislation because it did not change
the boundary, but simply fixed it,
completing what the territorial legis-
lature attempted to do. The mouth
of Knife river is indefinite, changing
with every freshet and storm. and
could not form proper basis for a
boundary line. The act of 1895, there
fore, merely permanently fixed the
line. Even if the act did change the
line, he contends that it is notspecial
legislation but general, and therefore
constitutional. In conclusion he says:
"Te expand is the fashion of the
day. Can it be possible that st. Louis
county, the empire county of thestate
of Minnesota, and probably of the
United States as far as area and iron
goes, with it's Vulnerable mines and
other valuable resources, is ambitious
to acquire still more territory? The
famous section 30 is the only mineral
property we have in the county so far
as general knowledge goes, and the
value Of it, being undeyeloped, is
purely probmatical. Does the fame
of it tempt your attorney to such a
degree that he would like to include
it within the borders of the county
he represents? There is no account
ing for the greed of mortals. believe
it wicked to covet your neighbor's
mine, and more particularly so since
1t is the only mine we have. To or
binary people it appears that you St.
Louis county people lave mines
enough, pine enough and territory
enough. What you need, if you need
ANYTHING, is contented citizens"
Pleased with Cuba and Porto Rico.
O. d. Kinney, one of our former
/ ,or,, M or, rr,n q in cifu q fan