The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1893-12-28

Now as to the quality of the logs cut
on 36-42-26-the number it takes to the
thousand submit the surveyor
generals figures.
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn., Dec. %, 1893.
r. G. DUNN: Scale of logs cut on
section SO, town AZ, range 26-l5, OBJ
logs; number of feet 2,423,0 lO; about
6 10 to the thousand.
S. S. BROWN, Surveyor General.
If logs taking II to the M. we're
worth S6.75 last spring surely logs talk
ing 6 Is to the thousand ought to be
worth $1050.
THE WITNESSES AS TO VALUE.
For the State Chas. Page, Ed. Page,
Robert Burch, Judson M. Goss, D. H.
Robbins and Charles R. Gardner all
testified that they we're familiar with
section Sc in question. Burch,
Robbins, Goss and Gardner had
cruised it and estimated it; Goss and
Burch in particular had spent days
estimating and appraising it with the
view of buying it. Mr.. Gardner is an
old cruiser and had been engaged in
exploring and estimating pine for IS
years. With the possible exception of
Gardner none of these witnesses were
ever engaged in numbering on
the St. Croix, as stated in the ridicul-
ously false and absurd article published
in the Leuabe,maa'e. Each witness
swore positively that the timber on &c.
1926 was an excellent quality of white
pine and was worth 81 per M. Leon
ard Pratt was not put on the stand.
John Goss simply testified as to log
ging road The character of these wit
nesses is above reproach. None of
them ever amassed a fortune by steal
ing from the State. Not one of them
is shoddy millionaire. They are all
comfortably we'll fixed, but not to call
rich. What little money they have
accumulated came to them honestly,
not through corrupt deals. Mr.. Null
vey, of Saltwater, so Mr.. Biermann
says, pronounced a portion of Mr.. Rob-
bins testimony as false. Right then
and there, in the court room, was Mr..
Mulvey's opportunity to impeach Mr..
Robbins testimony. He did
not embrace the opportunity.
The portion of Mr.. Robbins
evidence that Mr.. Mulvey objected to
was unimportant, anyhow. Mr.. Rob-
bins has resided in the Mile Laos res
ervation for eleven years. He is
familiar with every foot Of ground
there. He is an old surveyor and a
very Intelligent man. His word ought
to count for as much as Mr.. Mulvey's.
The court did not rely upon the testi-
mony of Mr.. Leonard Pratt, for that
gentleman did not testify. Mr.. John
Goss testified regarding a logging road
only. So Mr.. Biermann's assertion
that the court relied upon Messrs.
Pratt, John. Goss and D. H. Robbins,
as they were the principal witnesses,
falls to the ground.
Let US see who were the witnesses
for the defendants. There were hosts
of them present-to overawe the court
we presume-only a few of them were
placed on the stand, and every wit
ness who testified for the defendants
was either directly or indirectly inter-
ested, was either an employee of the
State Auditor or had purchased State
pine. Auditor Biermann, of course
attempted to justify his action; ex-Gov.
Pillsbury knew nothing about the
transaction personally, but he thought
''private sales" were permitted by law
and that 50 per M. was a fair price for
the stumpage; G. A. Smith, as mat
ter of fact, thought the deal was all
right; James Mailman, State timber
examiner, an employe of the Auditor
swore that the timber was not of an ex-
ira good quality and that 50 per M.