The Minneapolis journal., 1904-07-26
STATE WINS Big
SW AMP LAND CASE
DECISION MEANS SAVING OF
PERHAPS. $1,OOO,OOO.
Secretary of the Interior Upholds
State Auditor Iverson in Contest
Over 'Flatiron' Tract, Which (His
Predecessor) r. G. Dunn Had
Leased to Princeton Woman.

State Auditor Iverson received a
communication from Washington this
morning which cheered him consid-
erably. It announced the decision Of
the secretary of the interior on the
celebrated swamp land tract known
as the "flatiron." This decision con-.
firms the title to the state. The tract
contains just thirty-six acres, but, is
known to have valuable iron deposits
and may bring as high as $1,000,000s
in royalties to the state. .,=is
The title of the case was S. A. Hyde
& Co. VS.. the State of Minnesota. The
contestants claimed the tract under
a forestry scrip selection. The state
has title under the swamp-land act, by
which congress gave the state of Min
nesota every forty-acre tract shown
by the survey to contain a major por-s
ton of swamp. The practice of the
interior department has been to go
by the field notes Of the surveyors in
deciding whethersa piece was swamp.
BY a decision of March 16, 1908, Sec
retary Hitchcock announced it as the
rule of the department to take these
field notes as conclusive evidence.
The fiatiron tract is lot 1 of section
6, township 5SH, range II. This sec
ton is a wedge-shaped strip between
sections So and SO, due to an error
in early surveys. 1t was surveyed in
1894, and the field notes then made
showed lot 1 to be swamp. The ex-
aminer was not satisfied with the sur
veyor's location of the "lost corners" :"
and in 1901 ordered him to return
and mark them. In the notes de-
scribing this second visit, the surveyor
did not mention the swampy charac-
ter of the tract in question. How
ever, when the plat was filed with
the field notes of 1894, showing it to
be swamp, the state laid claim to it.
Hyde & Co. contested this, claiming
that the work done in 1901 was a re-
survey, and as it was silent on the
character of the land, it could not be
! considered swamp.
This was the real issue in the whole
| case, which was won by the state at
every point, beginning with the sur
veyor general for Minnesota, then on
appeal to the land commissioner and
the secretary. Secretary Hitchcock
agrees that the work done in 1901
was only a correction Of a minor
point, and the notes of the 1894 sur
vey govern. The state authorities
were certain the land was swamp.
In May, 1908, visit was made to 1t
by State Auditor Iverson, Messrs
| and c. w. Somerby, assistant attor-
ney general. They found plenty OF
proof that the land was swamp.
4 Auditor Iverson is jubilant over the
decision, which is dated July 20, but
was not made public till he received
it: He says the result is important
not only in the present case, which
means a big sum of money for the
state, but for the precedent it estab-
fishes It shows that the state is go.
ing to stand up for its full rights il
all such cases, and that contestants
will not have any easy time setting
aside state claims.
A mineral lease for the tract ir
question was issued by r. G. Dunn
when state auditor, just two days be
fore going out of office, to Miss Mabe
Evans of Princeton. At the end O.
a year this lease was converted int
a contract, which is being handled
by Messrs. Finn and Patterson, for
merly land clerk and assistant lanC
clerk in the auditors office.>ssis
There has been considerable criti
cism because of the issue of this leas
before the state had acquired title t.
the land. The tract, has not been de
: veloped, but it is believed, from tn
) wealth of ore in adjoining pieces, tha
: the lease is worth hundreds of thou
sands. The states royalty will be 2
3 cents a ton on all ore mined.