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

1t will be 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
(6,3O7.l5), and to the University Fund
thirteen thousand two hundred and five
dollars and seven cents (13,205.07), be-
ing in the aggregate 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 conversion and dis
posal of the logs. We find as matter
OF fact that in 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 ex-
isted; 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. It is clearly shown by the testi-
mony that in many cases notes were ac-
cepted In payment for stqmpage 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 Croker
Bros. & Lamoureaux in payment of
claim against R. j. Mendenhall,
and those Of Bray. Wilder
& Co. in payment of the
stumpage due from Richards, Bray &
French, and that of Emil Munich for the
balance due for stumpage cut under the
Taylor, Warren & Co. permit by Munich
Bros. & Co., are notable instances when
the lien Of the State appears to have
been voluntarily abandoned, and the
conversion of logs into lumber acqui-
esced In. We regret to say that we
cannot find in the reasons assigned by
Mr.. Mcllrath a satisfactory explanation
for his action in such cases. 1t will be
seen by the testimony of Mcssrs.
Lucas, Hurter, Seeger and
others, that the practice of
taking notes from lumbermen, instead
of the money, for stumpage, had exist
ed under Mr.. McIlrath for many years
prior to his taking the notes above re-
ferred 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 the case
Of the present officers, who are fully
justified in adopting any such reason
able expedients as they have used to
secure the payment of these notes.
That the ordering of this investigation
had FASTENED the payment Of many of
them We have no doubt.
The facts with reference to the Kan
diyohi stumpage notes" are substan-
TALLY and correctly set forth in the
foregoing communication of the Attor-
ney General; and will be fully under
stood by referring to the testimony of
Deputy State Treasurer Hurter and
Mr.. McIlrath. The transaction is GER
tainly remarkable, and, in the opinion
of your committee, without defense.
The State Auditor has no authority
to sell hard wood stumpage
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
ting of the timber upon sections six
teen (16) 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 Kandiyohi
county, sParsely timbered region
for so small sum. and thereby neces-
sarily deteriorate and in great measure
destroy the market value of the lands,
is unaccountable from the testimony,
and as climax to the transaction, the
State loses the entire proceeds of the
stumpage 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,
and testified to a series of facts so sur.
prising that we insert here a portion Of
his testimony. This testimony, in con.
nection with the fact tina: q hasty ex.
animation of the books and papers in
the Office of the 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.
| reside in Baytown, Washington county,
MINI.
g. How long have you resided there A.
Eighteen years.
@. What is your business that Of lum-
bering9 A. Yes sir.
@. State how long you have been engag-
ed in numbering. A About fifteen years,
l should think
O. During the time that you have been
engaged IN numbering have you purchased