The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1874-09-03

terms of office, taken notes from lumber
| men fo- stumpage indebtedness, in excep-
tional cases. The surprising fact was also
acknowledged that in no instance while
| he was Auditor had tresDassers upon
school, University or other State lands,
| been prosecuted for such trespass.
Referring to the manner in which the
accounts for stumpage were kept in his
Office, Mr.. McIlrath testified in effect that
that for permit stumpage would be found
properly entered in the journal and ledger
of the Auditors Office, and also in the
| same books Of the Land Department
| Office, together with tabulated statement
in the former Office, but that payments for
| trespass, and all matters relating 10 that
business, involving as shown many thou
| sand dollars year, the regular books OF
the various Offices contained no mention,
the only record being lot of "promlscu-
ous' papers showed away in some old
pigeon holes, received from explorers or
examiners. To use his own words, ''thls
trespass was a wild NATTER" but as ap.
pears from his own testimony, the "wild'
astn part of the whole business was the
way in which the accounts were kept in
his own Office. Being shown these returns
of the explorers, which he swore furnished
the only details OF this trespass business,
he was unable to explain to the committee
any means by which any conclusion could
| be reached as to the amount OF timber cut
by trespass, location of timber, names of
trespassers, cost OF proving the trespass,
| amount actually returned to the State
nothing, in fact, more than mere entry
| in the Treasurer's Office OF the amount paid
over by him. 49, -
The account of the grass cut, at.fne
time amounting to quite sum annually,
was kept in the same Irregular Wayne
| details being given.
| Passing from this wild business the COM
mittee led MIR. McIlr.th to an explanation
Of transaction in which he became
partner with Butler Comstock and other
parties for the purchase OF i've years
permit on large tract OF University lands.
The sale in this case, as appears from his
own testimony, was very quiet affair,
only one or two logging firms entering
| into competition with McIlrath and his
associates. Subsequently this contract
was assigned to MuMch Bros. & CO. After
wards the firm of Munich Bros. & Co. was
dissolved, Emil Munich then succeeding to
the logging interests and assuming the
debts, said Munich giving to the State
pronissory note for $7,132.A, payable
June l, 1873, which note was one OF the
many turned over to the State, or SO at
tempted, by McIlrarb, on his retirement
from office.
{ The examination of Mr.. Mcllrath further
developed the fact that on the Sd OF Feb
ruary. 1873, about month after his re-
tirement from Office, he paid the State
Treasurer the sum of SIC, 900, for moneys
advanced to him before he left the Office.
This, according to Mr. McIlrath, was
private transaction, and in no wise con-
nected with the business he had with the
State as Auditor. In this connection the
following extract from his sworn state
ment is given:
@. What IS the date you went out of
Office! A. The 18th or 14th OF January,
if recollect
@. On the 9th of January he credits
you, 1 believe, with $lO.190.75, in ad-
dition to the other amount. there are
two separate sums. A. You say there is
two separate sums that go to make S2O, O0O
instead of $4,000?
O. There is an entry ON the 9TH OF
January and the other on the Sd OF Feb
! ruary. A. Well, l guess they refer to
the same thing, probably
@. They are added up in his book
| twice. A. AS $40, 900.
O. Yes. A. l don't know how he.
kept his books. never paid him that
sum.
@. Then again on the 18th of Febru-
airy you are credited with $4,000. A.
$l63. I don't reoollect what that
refers to. 1t might have been some mat
ter that was left ig his hauds for collection
credited the Auditor.
@. Chas McIlrath. A. Sl63.O9. l
| 20 not know what do not recOilect it.
1t is very possible that somebody sent bis
AK, l suppose. or something OF the kind
that returned there. l cannot say.
Q. Then again ON the 10th of March,
| 1873, you are credited with 1851 In his
blotter. A. would not be surprised if
it was for the redemption Of tax receipts
| from the several counties. 1t may be so
@. On the 25th of March Of the same
year you are credited with $313.37. A.
| / shonld think those were tax receipts
sent to me a. against the Treasurer, and
that redeemed them Of him.
| @. Do you recollect making any such
pavmentsi A.. II was usual for me to
pay taxes in that way.
@. After you went out! A. No, it
ought to have been before, but I suppose
it was carried on afterwards. l do not re-
collect, positively, whether that was the
case afterwards or not. Atany rate what
ever sums of money were charged against
me by him. either paid or owe for.
Q This had nothing to do, then, with
| any of the matters relative to the official
4 duties of State Auditor2 A. No sir.
l @. Private transactions between you
and hint A. Yes sir.
In reference to transaction with Myers
& Co.. Of New York, the acci edited agents
of the State for the purchase OF State and
ohter securities for the school fund, in
which it appears that Sill 900 Of Missouri
6's were purchased by them for Mcllrath's
own private account, and after being held
by them for some months, were transfer
red to the State, Mr.. Mcllrath explains as
follows:
s. Then you bought these bonds with
your own private funds in the first in
stance, and they were Afterwards sold to the
STATED A. Yes, sir.
IL