The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1905-09-28
ter los, laws of 1895. Again it was
amended by chapter 312, laws of 1897.

ter los, laws of 1895. Again it was
amended by chapter 312, laws of 1897.
Again it was amended by chapter BIS,
laws of 1897. Again it was amended
by chapter 225, laws of 1908. Again
it was amended by chapter BIT. laws
OF 1908. In 1901 the subject of min
eral lands was also before the legis-
lature; and it then provided for the
reserv alton of the minerals in sale
of the State lands, and authorized
their leasing by the land commits
sioner in the same manner as the
States other mineral lands had been
leased. (Chap. l04, Laws 1907
On March p, 1905, the house passed
resolution reciting that the present
method of disposing of the valuable
mineral lands of the State had been
called in question from various
sources, and that the legislature had
no authentic information to properly
safeguard the interests of the State
by suitable legislation: and it d.
rected the governor, State auditor
and attorney general to make such in
vestigation and inquiries as might be
necessary as to the mineral lands
owned by the State, their value and
the royalty the State ought to receive
under present conditions on ore taken
therefrom, and to report such infor-
nation to the next legislature and
recommend such additional legisla-
ton as in their judgment might be
necessary. On March "a, 1905, the
senate concurred in this resolution.
There was no question made as to the
constitutionality of the lease law. If
there had been the legislature would
have provided for an examination of
the constitution, not for an investiga-
ton of the lands. The legislature
was simply DESTROYS of ascertaining
whether the State was receiving the
royalties which it ought to receive
from it's lands, under existing condi-
tons, and under the existing lease
law assumed to be valid.
The summons in this action is dated
March 25, 1905, and was served two
Or three days later.
The legislature of 1905 had before it
the report of the commission ap-
pointed by the supreme court, under
authority of the legislature, to revise
the statutes. This report was the
subject of serious consideration by
the legislators during a great portion
Of its session. It was the result of
several years. work on the part Of
the commission. On April Is, 1905,
the Revised Statutes were adopted,
and they contain the same mineral
lease law with unimportant changes.
If there ever was legislative con-
struction Of constitutional provis-
ion here one is shown. It has never
been challenged. That the legisla-
ture is sensitive to the people needs
no vouching. It is the department. of
the State government which responds
most quickly to the will of the people:
and during all these fifteen years the
people have acquiesced in the con-
struction given by their legislature.
The executive department. has
adopted the construction Of the legis-
lature. The State auditor during
the past fifteen years has executed and
delivered thousands Of leases and
contracts. The State treasurer has
received tens and tens of thousands of
dollars in initial payments thereon,
and hundreds of thousands of dollars
in the way of rents and royalties. All
these things have been reported to the
legislature from time to time. The
attorneys general during all these ff-
teen years have never questioned the
constitutional validity Of the law.
The judicial department. of the State,
in four decisions, the first as early as
1891, and the last as late as 1904, has
construed the law and has never sug-
gested a constitutional objection. In
the first three of these private rights
were determined and the duties Of the
land commissioner in executing leases
were defined. In the last one it was
sought to review by certiorari the &C.
ton of the land commissioner in re-
fusing to issue a lease of lands in the
bed Of a meandered lake. It was
held that the act of the commissioner
in issuing leases was ministerial and
could not be reviewed on certiorari.
In the latter case the attorney general
appearing for the State auditor did
not, nor did counsel participating in
any Of the cases, suggest the invalid
ity of the law, nor did such invalidity
occur to the court. The suggestion
that the attention of the court was not
directed to the contention now made is
without force in the present connec-
ton. If it's attention had been d.