The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-06-07
deny STATES RIGHT
| TO LEASE LAKE BEDS
Case involving This Question Is
Heard by the Supreme
Coz

4-4
q The supreme court Of Minnesota
sitting yesterday in d case involving
the question whether or not the state
has the right to lease lands lying UNI
der water for mineral exploration, in
timated quite broadly that there would
be no change in the law which has
prevailed in Minnesota since the state
was admitted to the Union. which law
confers no such power on the state
The case under consideration was
The State of Minnesota ex rel. Richard
F. Grant, relator, VS.. Samuel G. Iver-
son, commissioner of the land Office Of
the state of Minnesota. and the suit
was friendly one so far as the parties
in issue were concerned. Other Min
nesota mining men, however, inter-
vened and filed briefs in opposition to
the claims of the relator, for they own
land abutting on lakes which would be
seriously deprecated in value were the
courts to decide in favor of Grant and
his contention that the state has a
right to lease land lying in the beds Of
the lakes of the state.
The case came before the supreme
court on writ of certiorari, directed
to S. G. IverSOn, state auditor and land
CRTIlIY
for review the record of his action in
refusing to grant to Richard F. Grant,
Duluth attorney, mineral lease
covering certain lands lying under the
waters of SNOWFALL lake, in Itasca
county. While it is questionable
whether or not there are valuable min
erals underneath SNOWFALL lake. the
suit was in a sense friendly issue be-
tween Grant and the state auditor.
Lease Is Refused to Make Test Case
The auditor had previously issued
leases to mining men under similar
circumstances, but refused in this in
stance for the purpose of precipitating
suit that determination of the
question whether or not the state has
such an interest in the beds Of lakes
as will give it the right to issue min
eral leases thereon. Other applica-
tons pending were held up by the
state auditor pending a decision in this
case.
On the trial of the case yesterday
Grant in person filed brief and ar
gued the case orally. Attorney GEN
eral Donahower filed a brief, in which
he raised the point that the court in
this proceeding could not grant the re-
lief asked for. Washburn, Bailey 6,
Mitchell, and Jacques & Hudson, Du-
luth attorneys; w. r. Begg, st. Paul,
ana M. II. STANFORD, an Illinois attOr-
ney, each submitted briefs against the
proposed lease, as representing clients
who own lands which would be adj
versely affected either by the issuance
of the lease in question or similar
leases, and several of the attorneys ar
gued the case orally before the court.
Court Asks Significant Question
1t was in the course of Grants argu-
ment that Chief Justice Start asked a
question which is taken to forecast the
courts decision. He intimated that if
the contention of the relator was the
correct one, the improvements made
about st. Louis bay, and consisting Of
elevators, mills, wholesale houses and
docks, and estimated at millions of
dollars, all standing on land originally
under water or on made land, would
never have been built. Certainly no
man would invest any large amount Of
money on land which the state still
controlled, and the chief justice sug
gested that the state had no such au-
thority over lands in a meandered lake,
but the shore rights belonged to the
land owners, and this right could not
be destroyed by a writ of certiorari as
asked for in this case.
The case was taken under advise
ment by the supreme court. 1t is con-
sidered of much importance to the iron
r,4.- - -~%, -