The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-02-04

eu ny united states Circuit Court
Former Secretary HOke Smith
Reversed-The Law on the Side
of the Settler.
one OF the Chicago papers on Thurs
day published a story from Duluth
stating that the Northern Pacific rail-
way company had been awarded by the
United States circuit court title to a
million acres of land in Northern Min
nesota and Wisconsin. which would af-
feet the titles Of many settlers who
porter for The G 0 b e yesterday Dues
toned General Counsel Charles W.
Bum, of the Northern Pacific, In re-
gard to the matter
The article he said is incorrect
and quite misleading in many respects
First. the statement is made that the
case involves a million acres of land
and theoretically the rights of settlers
to the million acres. The fact is that
the case involves theoretically about
$4,000 acres Of land, but in point Of
fact it involves no land situated in
Wisconsin and only about 10000 acres
of land situated mostly in ST. Louis
county. Mimi, lying north and east of
Duluth Therefore. about $4,000 acres.
instead Of one million acres. is all the
land which the case involves. and but
little Of this is claimed by settlers. AS
to the balance of the 100000 acres, If
the company succeeds it would have a
right to select this land from the free
land Of the government unclaimed by
settlers in any state along its line.
Second. it can hardly be true, as
stated in this article, that many COM
petent attorneys think the case will be
reversed in the supreme court of the
United States. for, so far as l know,
the attorneys who have studied the
question all, or most of them. think
the decision was correct and will be
affirmed.
1.-The fact is that the Northern Pa
cific does terminate at Ashland and
does not terminate at Duluth 1t has al
ways been regarded and treated by the
government Of the United States as
terminating at Ashland until in 1895
or 1896 Secretary HOke Smith rendered
an opinion that the terminus was at
Duluth. The supreme court of Wiscon-
sin and the circuit court Of the United
States in Minnesota (the only courts
which have considered the question:
have decided that the ruling Of the
secretary was erroneous: and there
were several important facts which the
secretary did not have before him.
$50 far as the rights of the settlers
are concerned, they are not in jeopardy
and are not involved in the case. 1t is
difficult under the law as it stands for
the Northern Pacific to have any fur
Their controversy with settlers. For
congress passed an act In June, 1898,
which provides that where such con-
troversies do exist the settler has an
option to surrender the land to the
company If he desires. If he does not
desire to do so, but wishes to hold his
land instead, the company is obliged to
confirm his claim and select the same
acreage Of land elsewhere in some
state through which it's road runs.
This is not law in the interest of the
railway company, as the article have
referred to seeks to make it appear.
1t is a law in the interest of settlers.
Neither is 1t unprecedented. 1t is the
same kind of q law under which an
other railroad grant was adjusted in
Minnesota and North Dakota some
years ago to the satisfaction of set
tiers. 1t was considered by congress
that it was hardship for settlers to
litigate conflicting claims with rail-
way company, and therefore the set
tier was given an option by the law to
abandon his claim to the company and
take up another claim, or, if he pre-
ferred to hold his claim, the company
must abandon to him and select land
elsewhere. The railway company is
extremely DESTROYS to have this law
fully understood by the public. It is
DESTROYS of avoiding conflicts with all
settlers, and to have this act of con-
gress understood and put into effect.
Where it is entitled to land it wishes
to take land as to which there can be
no conflict with anybody"