St Paul, M. & M. R. Co. v. Phelps
| Decision Date | 03 March 1886 |
| Citation | 26 F. 569 |
| Parties | ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO. v. PHELPS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Geo. B Young and R. B. Galusha, for complainant.
W. P Clough, for defendant.
The controversy in this case arises under the act of March 3 1857, granting lands to the territory of Minnesota to aid in the construction of certain railroads. That portion of the grant which is material reads as follows:
'Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America, in congress assembled, that there be, and is hereby, granted to the territory of Minnesota, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of railroads from Stillwater, by way of St. Paul and St. Anthony, to a point between the foot of Big Stone lake and the mouth of the Sioux Wood river, with a branch via St. Cloud and Crow Wing, to the navigable waters of the Red River of the North at such point as the legislature of said territory may determine; from St. Paul and from St. Anthony via Minneapolis to a convenient point of junction west of the Mississippi, to the southern boundary of the territory in the direction of the mouth of the Big Sioux river, with a branch via Faribault to the north line of the state of Iowa, west of range sixteen; from Winona via St. Peter to a point on the Big Sioux river, south of the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude; also from La Crescent via Target Lake, up the valley of Root river, to a point of junction with the last-mentioned road, east of range seventeen,-- every alternate section of land designated by odd numbers, from six sections in width on each side of each of said roads and branches.'
The western terminus of the first main line above provided for was by the legislature of Minnesota fixed by Breckenridge, and the road was completed to that place. The land in controversy lies within six miles of this road, and it is conceded that if it is within the foregoing grant the title of complainant is good. Indeed, the concessions of counsel eliminate all questions but two.
First, it is claimed that because the land is situated outside the state of Minnesota it is not within the grant. The facts are these: At the time of this grant, March 3, 1857, Minnesota was yet a territory, its western boundary being the Missouri river. On February 26, 1857, about a week prior thereto, congress had passed an enabling act. 11 St.at Large, 166. By this enabling act the western boundary of the proposed new state of Minnesota was designated as follows:
'Beginning at the point in the center of the main channel of the Red River of the North, where the boundary line between the United States and the British possessions crosses the same; thence up the main channel of said river to that of the Bois de Sioux river; thence up the main channel of said river to Lake Traverse; thence up the center of said lake to the southern extremity thereof; thence in a direct line to the head of Big Stone lake; thence through its center to its outlet; thence, by a due south line, to the north line of the state of Iowa.'
Under this enabling act the state was organized and admitted into the Union the succeeding year. Breckenridge, the place named as the terminus, is situated at the junction of the Bois des Sioux and Red rivers, and on the western boundary of the state. The land in controversy is west of the Bois des Sioux river, and in the present territory of Dakota. Now, that tried by its letter the grant would include lands west of the Bois de Sioux river and in Dakota is obvious, and that congress had the power to grant to a state lands in another state or territory to aid in the construction of a road wholly within its limits is conceded. But the contention is that 'it has been the uniform and settled policy of the government to confine land grants, made in aid of the construction of railroads lying wholly within a given state or territory, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial