Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1892 [PAGE 212]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

PROCEEDINGS OF BOAKD OF TRUSTEES.

215

By a letter to this Board from the General Land Office, dated March 29, 1884, information was given t h a t there was a conflict as to the ownership of the S. E. i, 24, 124, 36, Pope county, Minnesota, it appears t h a t by the records of the Land Office, the plat shows this S. E. I entered by this University, and t h a t the S. W. ± of the same section was entered by agricultural college scrip, issued to Massachusetts. The tract book shows the S. E. i entered by Massachusetts scrip and the S. W. i entered by this University; and, to complete the confusion, patents were subsequently issued to both parties for the S. E. i. Some correspondence was had with regard to the matter at t h a t time, and the record of the Board meeting of November 9, 1886, shows t h a t the Committee on Nebraska and Minnesota Lands was authorized to take such steps as should be necessary to protect the interests of the University. April 20, 1887, Dr. Peabody visited the Land Office in Washington, filed a complete statement of the case in the name of the committee, and asked that, inasmuch as several conveyances of the S. E. ± had been made in good faith under the Massachusetts patent, and as the holder under t h a t patent was in possession of the land and had made considerable improvements, the University be allowed to surrender its patent to the S. E. i, and to re-locate its scrip upon the S. W. i, and receive a patent therefor. Not having heard further from the case. Dr. Peabody wrote the Land Office with regard to it June 15, 1891. This letter was not answered, and February 5th last Mr. Pillsbury wrote Hon. S. T. Busey, asking him to visit the Land Office and ascertain what disposition, if any, had been made of the case. A few days later Col. Busey wrote that January 13, 1892, the case had been decided in favor of the University, and t h a t the decision had been transmitted February 3d to the local land office. Application was at once made to the General Land Office for a copy of the decision. In reply the following paper was received last Saturday:

R. W . L. R. S.

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E I N T E R I O R .

Vol. 14,703.

F R A N K M. E D D Y )

WASHINGTON, January 13, 1892. y Timber culture entry—Act of March 3, 1891, Section 1. ,

vs.

U N I T E D STATES, )

Copy of so much of the decision of the First Assistant Secretary in the above case as relates to the University of the State of Illinois in the matters relating to the S. E. i and S. W. \ of section 24. in township 124 K., range 36 W. 5th P. M. "Upon the surrender of the patent issued to said University, with a relinquishment endorsed thereon, together with a quit-claim deed from said University, recorded in the office for the record of deeds in the county where said land lies, with a certificate from the proper recording officer of said countv, t h a t the said University has not transferred or encumbered the title acquired by said patent, said location of college scrip (No. 1491) may be canceled, and said scrip may be located upon said S. W. i, and patent may issue immediately thereupon to said University. Your judgment is affirmed."

GEO. CHANDLER,

First Assistant Secretary. The committee assumes t h a t the decision will be accepted by the Board, as both Dr. Peabody and Professor Shattuck agree, from personal inspection, t h a t the S. W. I is as valuable as the S. E. i, and it recommends t h a t the President and Secretary of the Board be directed to surrender the patent for the S. E. i, with relinquishment endorsed thereon, and to