The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-09-07
STATE LOSES IN
!. THE EVANS CASE
SUPREME COURT UPHoLDs MIN
ERAI, LEASE Law.

\ he 4 H - -,
and It's Intervention in Mabel Evans
| Case Is Rewarded Fraud Alleged Be-
fore Lower Court Found Not Proven,
/ Millions Of dollars worth of iron
mine properties which the state hoped
Ito. win thru the charg that the state
mineral lease Law is unconstitutional,
will remain in the hands Of the present
leaseholders, mostly Steel trust inter-
ests. ~. .- - =
:, This is the meaning of decision of
tne state supreme court today in the
Mabel Evans case, sustaining the consti-
tufG13eenallty OF chapter %, laws of 1859.
in. this case is valuable undeveloped
mine in st. Louis county, known as the
'Virginia Sliver.N The action was
first brought in the district court of
st. Louis county to set aside mineral
lease and contract, issued by the then
state auditor, R. G. Dunn, to Mabel
Evans, and dated Dec. 80, 1902, and
state, that there was collision in issu.
ing the lease by George L. Flynn and
l.. l.. Peterson, clerks in the auditor 3
office. The lower court held that the
allegations Of fraud were not proved.
The case was appealed by the state,
dwhose attorneys pressed the all.iin-
under which the lease was issued was
not constitutional. The supreme court
today, in it's opinion by Chief Justice
Start sustains the lower court in say
ing the fraud charges are not estab-
llshed, and goes a step farther In favor
Of the defendants, by sustaining the
validity Of the mineral lease law. i
Chief Justice Start says in part:
| 1oip
iSs for a tract Of swamp land, but by
the amendment of 1881 to section two
Of article eight of our state constitu.
ton, the sale Of all swamp lands Of
the state was placed under the same
and no greater limitations than the
sale Of school lands. If the provision
as to the sale of swamp lands had been
In the form of an independent amend
mIent to the constitution, there might
meaning. 1t is, however, an amend
ment to the particular section Of the
constitution prohibiting the sale Of
school lands except at public sale, and
providing for the investment and pres
ervation Of the fund arising from any
sale or other disposition thereof It Is
quite obvious from the reading Of the
whole section as amended, that the pur-
pose Of the amendment was to place
swamp lands as to sale thereof, on
the same basis as school lands, and not
the use Of general language, statutory
provisions as to the detail for the sale
Of school lands. T..
This mineral lease statute does not
purport to deal with agricultural lands,
hence section Is, article of the consti-
tuition declaring void ALL leases Of agri.
cultural land for q longer period than
ttWenty-one years, has no application to
/ the question under consideration.
constitutional unless it provides for a
sale of the school and swamp. lands of
the state within the meaning Of section
2, article 8, Of the constitution, which
provides in effect that the proceeds Of
school lands shall remain q perpetual
| seheol1 fund.-; that no portion Of such
public sale, chat Is, to the highest bid d.
der at auction; that the principal Of all
/ funds arising from public sales or other
| disposition Of such lands shall forever
i be preserved inviolate and rundimin-
1shed; and that the income arising from
! the lease or sale Of lands shall Sc dis.
trlbuted to the ditferent townships Of
the state in proportion to the number Of
the only limitation upon the upques-
toned power Of the legislature, in ab-
sence Of constitutional restrictions to
dispose Of the public domain as it sees
fit, relates solely to sale Of the lands,
ana that the right to lease or otherwise
dispose of the land is not prohibited,
put expre s. y recognized by. the consti-
lslature had the power to pass the
statute in question and that it is consti-
ttuional, is conclusive unless it is clear
that the method adopted by the legis-
lature TOR the development and dispo-
sltion of the mineral resources Of the
state IS prohibited by this section 2, ar
tlcle Of the constitution. The pur-
pose Of the provision prohibiting any
sale OF school lands, except at public
sale is, as stated by counsel for tile
state, to foster and conserve the school
fund, to prevent school lands from Sc.
| ing sold at an inadequate price, and to
secure competition therefore, and to
ton thereof 00'A
The pivotal question is whether the
prohl6ltion that no portion Of the
schoo! or swamp lands of the state shall
pc SOLD otherwise than at public auc.
t1on, includes mineral leases Of the Kind
auftIh19 ~ by the statute.
The term. no portion Of the lands.
as used in the constitution, does not
refer to the separate substance or: prod
uct, of a particular tract of land. The
prohibition is general in it's terms and
provides that no part Of the school
lands, that is. none Of them, shall be
] sold otherwise than at public sale. Any
! other construction would be not only
contrary to the plain import Of the
practical construction thereof by the
first legislature assembled after the
adoption Of the constitution, as evi.
dence by statute providing for the
sale, of grass on school lands, which,
until severed, is a. part of fhe land.
"Again, by the laws Of. 1863. chap.
ter y, section s, the commissioner OF
the land office was authorized to sell
from year to year, the right to cut
grass, gather cranberries, and make
maple sugar upon the school lands of
the state. -. .,.., .....s..,. H. 80
"The term SALE as ordinarily
used, and as it is used in the constitute
ton in reference to the disposition Of
school lands, means the transfer Of the
absolute, or general property. in the
thing sold. In determining whether Il
mineral lease of the kind here III urles
tlonais. sale, neither the name nor
fofm given to it by the statute il con:
trolling The legal effect of the trans.
action ION determines its classification, MOI
It's FORM -. :
MOTHER GOES TO FAIR
LEAVING BABY ALONE