The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-09-14
VIRGINIA SILVER
CASE is SETTLED
ContestantssFsiI to Appeal and
State is Owner of Valuable
Mineral Tract

The final chapter in the litigation, ex-
tending over a period Of years, in the
Virginia silver" case has been written
and Miss Mabel Davis, of Princeton, is
declared the lessee of one of the most
valuable iron propertieszsin the state.
The state, incidentally, has been made
the fee owner of the tract, and will real
lie handsomely from royalties taken
from the mine when It is put in operation
under the terms of the lease
State Auditor s. G.. Iverson estimates
that there afes2, 600, 600 tons of high grade
: ore on the property, and on the basis of
snet loya,lty*of cents a ton paid to the
100000. Using the same estimate of
the ore body and applying net market
price of 81 per ton, Miss Evans will be
a,;n very n, rten women when the iron is
Who Miss Evans is the state auditor
SAID Yesterday he. did not know. She is
a resident of Princeton, the home of
former State Auditor Dunn. and is said
to be related to Isaac C..Patterson, of
the real estateefrm of Finn & Patterson,
sassr pfss ahd Pu Mr S P Rera Boh
a1ee . ffor some years with the state au
dltor. office. =
States Title Established
Formal notification that the contestants
nave not appealed within the time al
lowed them, and that the matter is now
AUDITOR lverson, formally establishing the
STATE STATE ownership of the much discussed
Virginia silver a valuable tract of
The history of the silver contest is
familiar to persons interested. Others
may not know that in surveying govern
or silver shaped tract four. miles long and
containing thifty-six acres, was accident
ally overlooked between townships So and
~; a mile lie. and half north of Virginia,
lac hEafrr o,riaI
IRON mines, the Alpena and the Sauntry,
district =
In 1894 the tract was surveyed and the
federal surveyor reported that it was
swamp land
But errors were again committed and
notes of this survey, accepted as correct
and final by the general land office did
not state whether the tract was swamp
land.
Listed as Swamp Land
Jan 5,.19os Surveyor General E. s.
silver, which he designated as town
ship 5S1s.' Five days later he filed list
selecting the silver. according to law,
that Twas Wam n5aie dor BENG sae rea so
described in the uncontradicted notes
made a during thelsurvey of 1894.
20 But, t, TWO WS;s years earle, f. a. Hyde &
under the forest lieu act;" that is they
had claimed it under the act of June j.
1897, in lieu of other land relinquished to
the United States in forest reserve. If
as Hyde & Co. insisted, the Silver was
not swamp land and did not belong to
the state, 1t could legally be claimed UNI
der the forest lieu act.'
After the state, however, had filed on
the tract as swamp land the Silver
had been leased fofa mining purposes to
was to pay 500 a year rental and %
cents for every ton of ore shipped until
railroad facilities were assured. There
after she was to mine and ship at least
eaIivaient royalty Of i ESQ in add additi on
to the annual rental. .o,si55, 3 II
:. In ordersto1 ascertain the basis. of the
Hyde claim as against those, of the state
and Miss Evans, Auditor Iverson, Assist
ant Attorney General Somerby and others
visited the Silver in May, 1903 They
found it swamp land: eTa
The matter came once more before the
federal anthorities. and the commissioner
of the general land Office. decided Jan. Is,
1904 in favor, OF: the states, claims. Then
a the interi Gq appea1ed to the secretary Of
State Wins. on Appeal
On July 20, of this. year Acting Secretary
of the Interior ]. II, Fimple upheld the
decision of the commissioner. Mr.
Flmple declared that, although the sur
vey of 1894 was not accepted, the sur
acter of the land had net been disputed
during the later survey Of 1901; and that
as the second survey did not mention the
character of the land the notes of the
first survey upon that point. must be ac-
cepted as additional to the report of the
second survey. The tract, therefore, had
been found to be swamp land when first
ed, accordingly, to the state of Mime
sofa.
Hyde & Co., whose claim was thus re-
Jected. were notified that they could file a
motion for revision" within thirty days
from July 20. But they, failed to make
such motion.