Books: Minnesota and Dacotah
C >>
C.C. Andrews >> Minnesota and Dacotah
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 | 11 |
12
Pine Island
John Chance.
Poplar Grove
John Lee.
Red Wing
Henry C. Hoffman.
Spencer
Hans Mattson.
Wacouta
George Post.
Westervelt
Evert Westervelt.
HENNEPIN COUNTY.
Bloomington
Reuben B. Gibson.
Chanhassen
Henry M. Lyman.
Dayton
John Baxter.
Eden Prairie
Jonas Staring.
Elm Creek
Charles Miles.
Harmony
James A. Dunsmore.
Excelsior
Charles P. Smith.
Island City
William F. Russell.
Maple Plain
Irvin Shrewsbury.
Medicine Lake
Francis Hagot.
Minneapolis
Alfred E. Ames.
Minnetonka
Levi W. Eastman.
Osseo
Warren Samson.
Perkinsville
N. T. Perkins.
Watertown
Alexander Moore.
Wyzata
W. H. Chapman.
HOUSTON COUNTY.
Brownsville
Charles Brown.
Caledonia
Wm. J. McKee.
Hamilton
Charles Smith.
Hackett's Grove
Emery Hackett.
Hokah
Edward Thompson.
Houston
Ole Knudson.
Loretta
Edmund S. Lore.
Looneyville
Daniel Wilson.
La Crescent
William Gillett.
Mooney Creek
Cyrus B. Sinclair.
Portland
Alexr. Batcheller.
Sheldon
John Paddock.
Spring Grove
Embric Knudson.
San Jacinto
George Canon.
Wiscoy
Benton Aldrich.
Yucatan
T. A. Pope.
LAKE COUNTY.
Burlington
Chas. B. Harbord.
LA SUEUR COUNTY.
Elysium
Silas S. Munday.
Grandville
Bartlet Y. Couch.
Lexington
Henry Earl.
Waterville
Samuel D. Drake.
McLEOD COUNTY.
Glencoe
Surman G. Simmons.
Hutchinson
Lewis Harrington.
MEEKER COUNTY.
Forest City
Walter C. Bacon.
MORRISON COUNTY.
Little Falls
Orlando A. Churchill.
MOWER COUNTY.
Austin
Alanson B. Vaughan.
Frankford
Lewis Patchin.
High Forest
Thos. H. Armstrong.
Le Roy
Daniel Caswell.
NICOLLET COUNTY.
Eureka
Edwin Clark.
Hilo
William Dupray.
Saint Peter
George Hezlep.
Travers des Sioux
William Huey.
OLMSTEAD COUNTY.
Durango
Samuel Brink.
Kalmar
James A. Blair.
Oronoco
Samuel P. Hicks.
Pleasant Grove
Samuel Barrows.
Rochester
Phineas H. Durfel.
Salem
Cyrus Holt.
Springfield
Almon H. Smith.
Waterloo
Robert S. Latta.
Zumbro
Lucy Cobb.
PEMBINA COUNTY.
Cap Lake
David B. Spencer.
Pembina
Joseph Rolette.
Red Lake
Sela G. Wright.
Saint Joseph's
George A. Belcourt.
PIERCE COUNTY.
Fort Ridgeley
Benjn. H. Randall.
PINE COUNTY.
Alhambra
Herman Trott.
Mille Lac
Mark Leadbetter.
RAMSEY COUNTY.
Anoka
Arthur Davis.
Centreville
Charles Pettin.
Columbus
John Klerman.
Howard's Lake
John P. Howard.
Little Canada
Walter B. Boyd.
Manomine
Joseph A. Willis.
Otter Lake
Ross Wilkinson.
Red Rock
Giles H. Fowler.
St. Anthony's Falls
Norton H. Hemiup.
St. Paul
Charles S. Cave.
RICE COUNTY.
Cannon City
C. Smith House.
Faribault
Alexander Faribault.
Medford
Smith Johnson.
Morristown
Walter Norris.
Northfield
Calvin S. Short.
Shieldsville
Joshua Tufts.
Union Lake
Henry M. Humphrey.
Walcott
Joseph Richardson.
SAINT LOUIS COUNTY.
Falls of St. Louis
Joseph Y. Buckner.
Oneota
Edmund F. Ely.
Twin Lakes
George W. Perry.
SCOTT COUNTY.
Belle Plaine
Nahum Stone.
Louisville
Joseph R. Ashley.
Mount Pleasant
John Soules.
New Dublin
Dominick McDermott
Sand Creek
William Holmes.
Shak-a-pay
Reuben M. Wright.
SIBLEY COUNTY.
Henderson
Henry Pochler.
Prairie Mound
Morgan Lacey.
STEARNS COUNTY.
Clinton
John H. Linneman.
Neenah
Henry B. Johnson.
Saint Cloud
Joseph Edelbrook.
Torah
Reuben M. Richardson.
STEELE COUNTY.
Adamsville
Hiram Pitcher.
Aurora
Charles Adsit.
Dodge City
John Coburn.
Ellwood
Wilber F. Fiske.
Josco
James Hanes.
Lemond
Abram Fitzsimmons.
Owatana
Samuel B. Smith.
St. Mary's
Horatio B. Morrison.
Swavesey
Andrew J. Bell.
Wilton
David J. Jenkins.
SUPERIOR COUNTY.
Beaver Bay
Robert McLean.
French River
F. W. Watrous.
Grand Marias
Richard Godfrey.
Grand Portage
H. H. McCullough.
WABASHAW COUNTY.
Greenville
Rodman Benchard.
Independence
Seth L. McCarty.
Lake City
Harvey F. Williamson.
Mazeppa
John E. Hyde.
Minneska
Nathaniel F. Tifft.
Minnesota City
Samuel E. Cotton.
Mount Vernon
Stephen M. Burns.
Reed's Landing
Fordyce S. Richard.
Wabashaw
J. F. Byrne.
West Newton
Austin R. Swan.
WAHNATAH COUNTY.
Fort Ripley
Solon W. Manney.
WASHINGTON COUNTY.
Cottage Grove
Stephen F. Douglass.
Lake Land
Freeman C. Tyler.
Marine Mills
Orange Walker.
Milton Mills
Lemuel Bolles.
Point Douglass
R. R. Henry.
Stillwater
Harley Curtis.
WINONA COUNTY.
Dacota
Nathan Brown.
Eagle Bluffs
William W. Bennett.
Homer
John A. Torrey.
New Boston
William H. Dwight.
Richmond
Samuel C. Dick.
Ridgeway
Joseph Cooper.
Saint Charles
Lewis H. Springer.
Saratoga
Thomas P. Dixon.
Stockton
William C. Dodge.
Twin Grove
Oren Cavath.
Utica
John W. Bentley.
Warren
Eben B. Jewett.
Winona
John W. Downer.
White Water Falls
Miles Pease.
WRIGHT COUNTY.
Berlin
Charles W. Lambert
Buffalo
Amasa Ackley.
Clear Water
Simon Stevens.
Monticello
M. Fox.
Northwood
A. H. Kelly.
Rockford
Joel Florida.
Silver Creek
Abram G. Descent.
_______
II.
LIST OF LAND OFFICES AND OFFICERS IN MINNESOTA.
_______
GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
December 8, 1856.
SIR: Your two letters of the 6th instant, asking for a list of the
land offices in Minnesota Territory, with the names of the officers
connected therewith,-- also the number of acres sold and the amount of
fees received by such officers, during the fiscal year, ending 30th
June, 1856, have been received.
In reply, I herewith enclose a statement of the information desired,
save that the amount of fees for the fiscal year cannot be stated.
Very respectfully,
THOMAS A. HENDRICKS,
Commissioner,
C. C. ANDREWS, Esq.
LIST OF LAND OFFICES AND OFFICERS IN MINNESOTA.
LAND DISTRICTS.
Name of Register
Name of Receiver.
Number of acres sold during the fiscal year ending 30th of June, 1856.
Amount of purchase-money received therefor.
Stillwater
Thos. M. Fullerton
Wm. Holcomb
103,141.31
128,930.23
Sauk Rapids
Geo. W. Sweet
Wm. H. Wood
49,712.44
65,355.41
Chatfield (late Brownsville)
John R. Bennet
Jno. H. McKenny
238,323.26
298,920.90
Minneapolis
Marcus P. Olds
Roswell P. Russell
139,188.96
186,651.77
Winona
Diedrich Upman
Lorenzo D. Smith
264,777.38
335,845.66
Red Wing
Wm. P. Phelps
Chr. Graham
206,987.32
265,173.84
1,002,130.67
$1,280,867.81
Since the 30th June, 1856, the following offices have been established
and officers appointed.
Buchanan
Saml. Clark
John Whipple
Ojibeway
Saml. Plumer
Wm. Sawyer
_______
III.
LIST OF NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHED IN MINNESOTA.
PIONEER AND DEMOCRAT
St. Paul
Daily and Weekly
MINNESOTIAN
St. Paul
Daily and Weekly
TIMES
St. Paul
Daily and Weekly
FINANCIAL ADVERTISER
St. Paul
Weekly
UNION
Stillwater
Weekly
MESSENGER
Stillwater
Weekly
EXPRESS
St. Anthony
Weekly
REPUBLICAN
St. Anthony
Weekly
DEMOCRAT
Minneapolis
Weekly
FRONTIERSMAN
Sauk Rapids
Weekly
NORTHERN HERALD
Watab
Weekly
INDEPENDENT
Shakopee
Weekly
REPUBLICAN
Shakopee
Weekly
DEMOCRAT
Henderson
Weekly
COURIER
St. Peter
Weekly
DAKOTA JOURNAL
Hastings
Weekly
SENTINEL
Red Wing
Weekly
GAZETTE
Canon Falls
Weekly
JOURNAL
Wabashaw
Weekly
ARGUS
Winona
Weekly
REPUBLICAN
Winona
Weekly
SOUTHERN HERALD
Brownsville
Weekly
Carimona
Weekly
DEMOCRAT
Chatfield
Weekly
REPUBLICAN
Chatfield
Weekly
RICE COUNTY HERALD
Faribault
Weekly
St. Cloud
Weekly
OWATONIA WATCHMAN AND REGISTER
Owatonia
Weekly.
_______
IV.
TABLE OF DISTANCES.
_______
TABLE OF DISTANCES FROM ST. PAUL.
MILES
To St. Anthony
8 3/4
Rice Creek
7
15 3/4
St. Francis, or Rum River
9
25
Itasca
7
32
Elk River
6
38
Big Lake
10
48
Big Meadow (Sturgis)
18
66
St. Cloud (Sauk Rapids)
10
76
Watab
6
82
Little Rock
2
84
Platte River
12
96
Swan River
10
106
Little Falls
3
109
Belle Prairie
5
114
Fort Ripley
10
124
Crow Wing River
6
130
Sandy Lake
120
250
Savannah Portage
15
265
Across the Portage
5
270
Down Savannah River to St. Louis River
20
290
Fond-du-Lac
60
350
Lake Superior
22
372
Crow Wing River
130
Otter Tail Lake
70
200
Rice River
74
274
Sand Hills River
70
340
Grand Fork, Red River
40
380
Pembina
80
460
Sandy Lake
250
Leech Lake
150
400
Red Lake
80
480
Pembrina
150
630
Stillwater
18
Arcola
5
23
Marine Mills
6
29
Falls St. Croix
19
48
Pokagema
40
88
Fond-du-Lac
75
164
Red Rock
6
Point Douglass
24
Red Wing
Winona's Rock, Lake Pepin
30
60
Wabashaw
30
90
Prairie du Chien
145
235
Cassville
29
264
Peru
21
285
Dubuque
8
293
Mouth of Fever River
17
310
Rock Island
52
362
Burlington
135
497
Keokuk
53
550
St. Louis
179
729
Cairo
172
901
New Orleans
1040
1941
Mendota
7
Black Dog Village
4
Sixe's Village
21
Traverse des Sioux
50
Little Rock
45
Lac Qui Parle
80
Big Stone Lake
66
Fort Pierce, on Missouri
240
TABLE OF DISTANCES FROM ST. CLOUD.
To Minneapolis
62
Superior City, on Brott and Wilson's Road
120
Traverse des Sioux
70
Henderson
60
Fort Ridgley
100
Long Prairie
40
Otter Tail Lake
60
The Salt Springs
120
Fort Ripley
60
Mille Lac City
60
DISTANCES FROM CROW WING.
To Chippeway Mission
15
Ojibeway
50
Superior City
80
Otter Tail City
60
St. Cloud
55
_______
PART IV.
PREEMPTION FOR CITY OR TOWN SITES.
_______
PREEMPTION FOR CITY OR TOWN SITES.
AT a late moment, and while the volume is in press, I am enabled to
present the following exposition of the Preemption Law, addressed to
the Secretary of the Interior by Mr. Attorney-General Cushing. (See
"Opinions of Attorneys General," vol. 7, 733-743-- in press.)
PREEMPTION FOR CITY OR TOWN SITES.
Portions of the public lands, to the amount of three hundred and
twenty acres, may be taken up by individuals or preemptioners for city
or town sites.
The same rules as to proof of occupation apply in the case of
municipal, as of agricultural, preemption.
The statute assumes that the purposes of a city or town have
preference over those of trade or of agriculture.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
July 2, 1856.
SIR: Your communication of the 20th May, transmitting papers regarding
Superior City (so called) in the State of Wisconsin, submits for
consideration three precise questions of law; two of them presenting
inquiry of the legal relations of locations for town sites on the
public domain, and the third presenting inquiry of another matter,
which, although pertinent to the case, yet is comprehended in a
perfectly distinct class of legal relations.
I propose, in this communication, to reply only upon the two first
questions.
The act of Congress of April 24, 1841, entitled "An act to appropriate
the proceeds of the sales of the public lands and to grant preemption
rights," contains, in section 10th, the following provisions: "no
lands reserved for the support of schools, nor lands acquired by
either of the two last treaties with the Miami tribe of Indians in the
State of Indiana, or which may be acquired of the Wyandot tribe of
Indians in the State of Ohio, or other Indian reservation to which the
title has been or may be extinguished by the United States at any time
during the operation of this act; no sections of lands reserved to the
United States alternate to other sections of land granted to any of
the States for the construction of any canal, railroad, or other
public improvement; no sections or fractions of sections included
within the limits of any incorporated town; no portions of the public
lands which have been selected for the site of a city or town; no
parcel of a lot of land actually settled or occupied for the purposes
of trade and not agriculture; and no lands on which are situated any
known salines or mines, shall be liable to entry under or by virtue of
this act." (v Stat. at Large, p. 456.)
An act passed May 28, 1844, entitled "An act for the relief of
citizens of towns upon the lands of the United States under certain
circumstances," provides as follows:
"That whenever any portion of the surveyed public lands has been or
shall be settled upon and occupied as a town site, and therefore not
subject to entry under the existing preemption laws, it shall be
lawful, in case such town or place shall be incorporated, for the
corporate authorities thereof, and if not incorporated, for the judges
of the county court for the county in which such town may be situated,
to enter at the proper land office, and at the minimum price, the land
so settled and occupied, in trust for the several use and benefit of
the several occupants thereof, according to their respective
interests; the execution of which trust, as to the disposal of the
lots in said town, and the proceeds of the sales thereof, to be
conducted under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the
legislative authority of the state or territory in which the same is
situated; Provided, that the entry of the land intended by this act be
made prior to the commencement of a public sale of the body of land in
which it is included, and that the entry shall include only such land
as is actually occupied by the town, and be made in conformity to the
legal subdivisions of the public lands authorized by the act of the
twenty-fourth of April, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, and
shall not in the whole exceed three hundred and twenty acres; and
Provided also, that the act of the said trustees, not made in
conformity to the rules and regulations herein alluded to, shall be
void and of none effect:" * * * (v Stat. at Large, p. 687.)
Upon which statutes you present the following questions of
construction: "1st. What is the legal signification to be given to the
words, 'portions of the public lands which have been selected as the
site for a city or town,' which occur in the preemption law of 1841,
and which portions of the public lands are by said act exempted from
its provisions? Do they authorize selections by individuals with a
view to the building thereon of a city or town, or do they contemplate
a selection made by authority of some special law?
"Do the words in the act of 23d May, 1844, 'and that the entry shall
include only such land as is actually occupied by the town,' restrict
the entry to those quarter quarter-sections, or forty acre
subdivisions, alone, on which houses have been erected as part of said
town, or do they mean, only, that the entry shall not embrace any land
not shown by the survey on the ground, or the plat of the town, to be
occupied thereby, and not to exceed 820 acres, which is to be taken by
legal subdivisions, according to the public survey, and to what
species of 'legal subdivisions' is reference made in said act of
1844?"
These questions, as thus presented by you, are abstract questions of
law,-- namely, of the construction of statutes. They are distinctly
and clearly stated, so as not to require of me any investigation of
external facts to render them more intelligible. Nor do they require
of me to attempt to make application of them to any actual case,
conflict of right, or controversy either between private individuals
or such individuals and the Government.
It is true that, accompanying your communication, there is a great
mass of representations, depositions, arguments, and other papers,
which show that the questions propounded by you are not speculative
ones, and that, on the contrary, they bear, in some way, on matters of
interest, public or private, to be decided by the Department. But
those are matters for you, not for me, to determine. You have
requested my opinion of certain points of law, to be used by you, so
far as you see fit, in aid of such your own determination. I am thus
happily relieved of the task of examining and undertaking to analyze
the voluminous documents in the case: more especially as your
questions, while precise and complete in themselves, derive all
needful illustration from the very instructive report in the case of
the present Commissioner of Public Lands and the able brief on the
subject drawn up in your Department.
I. To return to the questions before me: the first is in substance
whether the words in the act of 1841,-- " portions of the public land
which have been selected as the site for a city or a town,"-- are to
be confined to cases of such selection in virtue of some special
authority, or by some official authority?
I think not, for the following reasons:
The statute does not by any words of legal intendment say so.
The next preceding clause of the act, which speaks of lands "included
within the limits of any incorporated town," implies the contrary, in
making separate provision for a township existing by special or public
authority.
The next succeeding clause, which speaks of land "actually settled or
occupied for the purposes of trade and not agriculture," leads to the
same conclusion; for why should selection for a town site require
special authority any more than occupation for the purposes of trade?
The general scope of the act has the same tendency. Its general object
is to regulate, in behalf of individuals, the acquisition of the
public domain by preemption, after voluntary occupation for a certain
period of time, and under other prescribed circumstances. In doing
this, it gives a preference preemption to certain other uses of the
public land, by excluding such land from liability to ordinary
preemption. Among the uses thus privileged, and to which precedence in
preemption is accorded, are, 1. "Sections, or fractions of sections
included within the limits of any incorporated town;" 2. "Portions of
the public land which have been selected for the site of a city or
town;" and, 3. "Land actually settled or occupied for the purposes of
trade, and not agriculture." Now, it is not easy to see any good
reason why, if individuals may thus take voluntarily for the purposes
of agriculture,-- they may not also take for the purposes of a city or
town. The statute assumes that the purposes of a city or town have
preference over those of trade, and still more over those of
agriculture. Yet individuals may take for either of the latter
objects: a fortiori they may take for a city or town.
Why should it be assumed that individual action in this respect is
prohibited for towns any more than for trade or agriculture? It does
not concern the Government whether two persons preempt one hundred and
sixty acres each for the purposes of agriculture, or for the purpose
of a town, except that the latter object will, incidentally, be more
beneficial to the Government. Nor is there any other consideration of
public policy to induce the Government to endeavor to discourage the
formation of towns. Why, then, object to individuals taking up a given
quantity of land in one case rather than in the other?
Finally, the act of 1844 definitively construes the act of 1841, and
proves that the "selection" for town sites there spoken of may be
either by public authority or by individuals:-- that the word is for
that reason designedly general, and without qualification, but must be
fixed by occupation. That act supposes public land to be "settled upon
and occupied as a town site," and "therefore" not subject to entry
under the existing preemption laws. This description identifies it
with the land "selected for the site of a city or town," in the
previous act. It limits the quantity so to be selected, that is,
settled or occupied, to three hundred and twenty acres, and otherwise
regulates the selection as hereinafter explained. It then provides how
such town site is to be entered and patented. If the town be
incorporated, then the entry is to be made by its corporate
authorities. If the town be not incorporated, then it may be entered
in the name of the judges of the county court of the county, in which
the projected town lies, "in trust for the several use and benefit of
the several occupants thereof, according to their respective
interests." Here we have express recognition of voluntary selection
and occupancy by individuals, and provision for means by which legal
title in their behalf may be acquired and patented.
I am aware that by numerous statutes anterior to the act of 1841,
provision is made for the authoritative selection of town sites in
special cases; but such provisions do by no means exclude or
contradict the later enactment of a general provision of law to
comprehend all cases of selections for town sites, whether
authoritative or voluntary. I think the act of 1841, construed in the
light of the complementary act of 1844, as it must be, provides
clearly for both contingencies or conditions of the subject. Among the
anterior acts, however, is one of great importance and significancy
upon this point, more especially as that act received exposition at
the time from the proper departments of the Government. I allude to
the act of June 22d, 1838, entitled "An act to grant preemption rights
to settlers on the public lands." This act, like that of 1841,
contains a provision reserving certain lands from ordinary preemption,
among which are:
"Any portions of public lands, surveyed or otherwise, which have been
actually selected as sites for cities or towns, lotted into smaller
quantities than eighty acres, and settled upon and occupied for the
purposes of trade, and not of agricultural cultivation and
improvement, or any land specially occupied or reserved for town lots,
or other purposes, by authority of the United States." (v Stat. at
Large, p. 251.)
Here the "selection" generally, and the "selection" by authority are
each provided for eo nomine. It is obvious that the provision in the
latter case is made for certainty only; since, by the general rules of
statute construction, no ordinary claim of preemption could attach to
reservations made by authority of the United States. The effective
provision in the enactment quoted, must be selections not made by the
authority of the United States.
In point of fact the provision was construed by the Department to
include all voluntary selections: lands, says the circular of the
General Land Office of July 8, 1838, "which settlers have selected
with a view of building thereon a village or city."
It seems to me that the same considerations which induced this
construction of the word "selection" in the act of 1838, dictate a
similar construction of the same word in the subsequent act. Besides
which, when a word or words of a statute, which were of uncertain
signification originally, but which have been construed by the proper
authority, are repented in a subsequent statute, that is understood as
being not a repetition merely of the word with the received
construction, but an implied legislative adoption even of such
construction.
II. The second question is of the construction of the act of 1844,
supplemental to that of 1841; and as the construction of the elder
derives aid from the language of the later one, so does that of the
latter from the former. The question is divisible into sub-questions.
1. Does the phrase "that the entry (for a town-site) shall include
only such land as is actually occupied by the town," restrict the
entry to those quarter quarter-sections, or forty acre subdivisions
alone, on which houses have been erected as part of said town?
2. What is the meaning of the phrase in the act "legal subdivisions of
the public lands," in "conformity" with which the entry must be made?
I put the two acts together and find that they provide for a system of
preemptions for, among other things, agricultural occupation,
commercial or mechanical occupation, and municipal occupation.
In regard to agricultural occupation, the laws provide that, in
certain cases and conditions, one person may preempt one hundred and
sixty acres, and that in regard to municipal occupation a plurality of
persons may, in certain cases and conditions, preempt three hundred
and twenty acres. In the latter contingency, there is no special
privilege as to quantity, but a disability rather; for two persons
together may preempt three hundred and twenty acres by agricultural
occupation, and afterwards convert the land into a town site, and four
persons together might in the same way secure six hundred and forty
acres, to be converted ultimately into the site of a town; while the
same four persons, selecting land for a town site, can take only three
hundred and twenty acres. In both forms the parties enter at the
minimum price of the public lands. The chief advantage which the
preemptors for municipal purposes enjoy, is, that they have by statute
a preference over agricultural preemptors, the land selected for a
town site being secured by statute against general and ordinary, that
is, agricultural preemption. In all other respects material to the
present inquiry, we may assume, for the argument's sake at least, that
the two classes stand on a footing of equality, as respects either the
convicting interests of third persons, or the rights of the
Government.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 | 11 |
12