The Grange advance., 1874-09-09
It will b., seen by these communica-

It will b, seen by these communica-
tons that there is now due upon these
notes to the Permanent School Fund ,
the sum Of six thousand three hundred !
and seven dollars and fifteen cents !
(9,3O1.l5), and to the University Fund
thirteen thousand two hundred and five
dollars and seven cents Q3.205.07). be-
ing III the a: :gregate the sum OF nine
teen thousand five hundred and twelve
dollars and twenty-five cents (l9.5l2.22(.
1t is needless to say that the State has
no other security for the payment Of
these notes than is above indicated. If
the State ever had any security by
virtue Of lien upon the logs: for which
the notes were given, that has long
/ since vanished by a conversion and dis
posal of the logs. We find as a~matter
of fact that in N any instances where
these notes were taken. it must have
been known to Mr.. McIlrath that the
lien security which the State at one
time had upon the logs, no longer cx-
listed and in others was thereby vol
unfairly abandoned. Whether the legal
effect of the acceptance Of these
notes, in lieu Of cash in Payment
of the stumpage was to destroy and re-
linquish whatever lien the State had
upon logs. we leave for you to deter
mine. 1t is clearly shown by the testi-
mony that in many cases notes were &C.
j, cepted in payment for stumpagc after
the parties had been allowed to convert
the logs into lumber, and the lien of the
State destroyed. The necessity for the,
acceptance Of the notes Of Crooker
Bros. t. Lamoureaux in payment Of
claim against r. J. Mendenhall.
and those Of Bray, Wilder
& Co. in payment Of the
strmpagc due from Richards, Bray l.
French and .hat Of Emil Munich for the
balance Due for stunpsge cut under the
Taylor, Warren & Co. permit by Munich
Bros. & Co.. are notable instances when
the lien Of the State appears to have
been volun* arily abandoned, and the
conversion Of logs into lumber a2qui-
esccd in. We regret to say that we
cannot fad in the reasons assigned by
Mr.. Mcllzath a satisfactory explanation
for his action in s1ch cases 1t will be
seen by the testimony Of Mcssrs.
/ Lucas, Ilurtar, Sccger aid
others, that the practice Of
taking notes from lumhe,1nen. instead
Of the money, far stumpage. had exist
cd under Mr.. McIlrath fer many y,ars
prior TO his taking the notes above re-.
terred to. That the practice Of taking
these notes is bad one the facts
show. 1t is wholly unlawful and with
out excuse, except perhaps in thu case
of the present officers, who are fully
Justified in adopting any such season
abl: cxpedients as tEey have used to
secure the payment Of these notes.
That the ordering Of this investigation
had hastenee the payment of many Of
them we have no doubt.
: The factsryith reference to the Exam
diyohi sturapage notes. are substan.
TALLY and correctly set forth in the
foregoing communication Of the -Attor-
rey General: and will be fully under
stood by referring to the testimony of
IDeputy State Treasurer Hurter and
Mr. Mcllrath. The transaction is ccr-
tainly remarkable, and, in the opinion
'of your committee, without defense.
The State Auditor has no authority
ITO sell hard wood stumpage
j;upon these lands, his authority
being confined to pine timber-and that
he so understood the law would appear
from the testimony relative to the cut
Sing Of the timber upon sections six
teen :(l6} and thirty six 1885, in the town
! of Independence, Henncpin county, to
which reference will be made in another
part of this report. That he should
assume the responsibility Of selling the
timber upon those lands in Randy obi
county, sparsely timbered region
FOR so small a sum. and thereby neces.
sarily deteriorate and in great measure
destroy the market value of the lands,
is unaccounta able from the testimony,
| and as a climax to the transaction, the
State losesthe entire proceeds of the
stnmpage in consequence Of the failure to
secure the State in the first instance,
and the insolvency Of the then County
Treasurer'who collected the mouey.
! Prior to the adjournment sine die of
the Senate, David Cover, ESQ.,, of Still
water, among others, came before your
committee in response to our subpoena,
ana testified to series Of facts so sur
prising that we insert here portion of
his testimony. This testimony, in con-
nectaon with the fact tina; a hasty ex-
animation of the books end papers in
the office Of tie State Auditor and
Land Commissioner failed to throw any
light upon any such transactions, or to
even mention them in any form, was
the PRINCIPAL reason why your commit
tee asked for further time to prosecute
their investigations. Mr.. Covers tes-
timony is as follows:
David Covers Evidence.
O.. Mr.. Cover, state where you reside. A.