The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-03-27
YOUNG SUES TO
VOID CONTRACT
Famous Silver" Lease to Mabel
Evans Attacked by the
State.
Attorney General Charges Con-
spiracy by Land Clerks to
Secure Ore Tracts.

brought an action to set aside the
famous "sliver' contract held by
Mabel Evans Of Princeton. upon an
immensely valuable mineral tract near
Virginia, Mimi, belonging to the state
school fund.
Five parties are named in the COM
plant, which was served today upon all
are George A. Finn of St. Paul, Isaac
G. Patterson Of Princeton, ,Coryate S.
Wilson and B. E. Baker Of Duluth. The
Duluth men hold fve-sixteenths and
three-sixteenths interest respectively,
WHICH were ASST gned to them recently
The attorney general alleges con-
spiracy by which Finn and Patterson,
clerks in the state landofice, secured
the lease in the name of Mabel Evans.
His statement Of the case, given to
The Journal today, is as follows:
Attorney Generals Statement.
ct have commenced suit to cancel
the contract issued by the state to
Mabel Evans for the so-called Silver
mineral property in St. Louis county,
las with me in the case, on account Of
his familiarity with the questions in
volved. .''~~r--, ~
"We believe that Finn and Patter-
son, who were respectively land clerk
and assistant land clerk in the audi
tors Office during the last administra-
tion, whose duty it was to look after
the interests Of the state in the disposal
of it's mineral lands, had been engaged
for some time before they went out Of
office in specializing in state mineral
leases, which they always took in the
name Of Mabel Evans.
s'The property was one Of the most
valuable owned by the state, being
millions, a lease upon which would, if
sold at public auction, bring a very
large sum in addition to the % cents
a ton royalty reserved to the state
under the law. -.,z.
1.-THE ore is claimed to be worth IS
cents ton in the ground. a''s..:..
"There had been several appGca-
plicants had been advised that the
title was in litigation and the tract
not subject to lease. In the meantime
o lease was secretly procured by them
in the name of Mabel Evans for the
minimum sum provided by law, viz,
1926, which lease was afterward fol-
lowed by, contract whereby the state
sold the ore to Mabel Evans at rs
of at least 50 cents a ton on
several million tons of ore, to Mabel
Evaus and the persons associated with
her in the transaction.
"There were other applicants at the
time this original lease was issued, and
therefore under the law the lease
should have been sold at public auc-
ton, and if so sold it would have
brought a large sum into the state
treasury for the benefit Of the school
fund.-. ...~...-....
/ GIVE believe this was breach of
duty by these public officials, and that
the, whole transaction was void for that
reason. ..s e. 30.
"There are other important questions
involved which I do not care to discuss
at this time. This. suit will not aid
the United States district court. The
| result we are seeking is to secure a
Lpublic sale of this very valuable proper
| ty SO that the school fund will get the
benefit, instead of any individual secur-
ing vast fortune for nothing at the
expense of the state.'
Fruit of johnson Reports.
| This suit is another outcome of the
examination of the state auditor IS office
by S. T. johnson, as public examiner.
| The facts as stated in his report to the
governor show that In the last two
years of r: c. Dunn 8 administration as
state auditor, a number of mineral
leases were issued to Mabel Evans, who
is sister of I. G. Patterson. Later the
interest of Mabel Evans was turned
over to Finn and Patterson. The lease
in question was issued by Mr.. Dunn,
Dec. 80, 1902. Evidence shows that
other applications had been received be-
fore, and even on the same day, which
were rejected.
Pearl H. Smith, who made application
before that date, has brought suit to
secure the lease for himself. The state
auditor is party to this suit, and the
attorney general must appear for him.
He will move that the service as to the
state auditor be set aside, for lack of
jurisdiction.
The suit brought by the attorney gen
eral will be tried in st. Louis county,
probably at the coming April term. It
is brought to clear away a cloud on the
state s title to the tract. The state is
still the fee owner, and the suit is sim
ply to set aside the fifty-year contract.