The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1913-11-22
State Lands And the State School
Fund

Everybody who discusses the
states public land policy, from the
governor and state auditor down-or
up-assumes that there is an irrecon-
ciable Inconsistency between using
the proceeds of the sale Of these
lands for reclamation purposes, as
the Federal grant requires, and put
ting them into the permanent school
fund, as the state constitution re-
quires.
There is no such Inconsistency, nor
is there anything irreconciable in
the situation.
If there were, doubtless the state
Constitution would have to give way.
If constitutional provision can
abrogate contract on which these
gifts of land are based, then the ven
dee of a piece of land can change
the contract for sale without con-
sulting the vendor.
But it isn't necessary even to go
into that.
Where everybody who has dis
cussed this question misses the
point is in assuming that when the
proceeds of the sale of state land are
used for reclamation purposes, that
necessarily means that the money is
diverted from the permanent school
fund and will never get there.
That isn't so. The diversion is
only temporary; and because of it, if
the state will simply apply itself in
telligently to creating sensible and
businesslike land policy, the perma
nent school fund will profit enor-
mously.
Suppose that the state provided by
law that the proceeds from the sale
of state land should go into reclaim
alton revolving fund, but with the
understanding that this should be
only a temporary funG and that when
and as the need of it's ceases this
fund shall be transferred to the per-
manent school fund.
This would provide fund for re-
claiming state lands; and RECLAIM
ALTON means not only DRAINING
submerged lands, but CLEARING
stump-covered lands and BUILD
ING ROADS to inaccessible lands.
What would happen to the state
tn ho fofo RI he
nent school fund, can be illustrated
thus:
Take, as an example, an eighty
acre tract of state land, half in
swamp, all of it covered with brush
and stumps, and without a road to
reach it. What is it worth? Actual
ly, nothing at all: potentially much;
and as there is Constitutional min
imum of five dollars per acre, put its
original value at that. That takes
the tract worth four hundred dollars
as it stands.
Suppose, out of the reclamation
fund, the forty acres of swamp were
drained at cost of eighty dollars
a high price. The tract then would
be worth, say, ten dollars an acre, or
eight hundred dollars for the whole.
Suppose, again, that a road were
built by which settler could get to
this land and bring his produce to
market, at cost, say, of two dollars
an acre. 1t is not saying too much
to assert that this additional expen-
diture Of hundred and sixty dollars
would make the tract worth fifteen
dollars an acre, or tweleve hundred
dollars.
Suppose, now, that the state took
from it's reclamation fund three hun
dred dollars more and cleared ten
acres of the tract so that the settler
could make living from the begin
ming. This would make the cleared
acres worth fifty dollars an acre, and
the uncleared balance worth twenty;
or a total of nineteen hundred dol
lars for the tract.
Suppose, finally, that this tract
Were sold to settler at that price
The five hundred and forty dollars
taken from the reclamation fund
would be returned to it. The rest,
thirteen hundred and sixty dollars,
would go into the permanent school
fun. Ultimately the fund would get
all the rest also.
Where is the loss or harm to the
school fund here? This land, un-
drained, uncleared and without roads,
was worth at the outside five hundred
dollars; and it could not have been
sold, except to a speculator, at any
price.
Instead OF a very improbable five
hundred dollars, the permanent
school fund would get thirteen hun
dred and sixty dollars, and ultimately
nineteen hundred The state would
be ahead one farm, one thrifty settler. |