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

was. liable to waste or destruction?
Here is Mr.. Smiths letter:
d MINNEAPOLIS, Minn., Jan. %, 1892
Hon. A: Bierman, State Auditor, St.
Paul, Minn.-Dear Sir: We have a
camp, and Are nptting some timber in
section SO, ta lnge 26, but find
th66t we hat nat lffcient timber for
oar55winter' .5gS. aid would like very
much if we the timber on Sec
ton 36, ind We US the full win
teEas work. 1g eve it has been
customary En Est past, in cases of
this kind, fqes3Se 5e to accommodate
the lum bermen in this way; and mas
much, further, as this timber is on the
Indian reservation, thought possibly
there would not be much objection.
This section is located over four miles
in a straight line from the river, MAX
ing a very long haul, but thought un-
dersthe circumstances, that we should
pay $1.75 per Thousand feet for what
timber there might be in the section.
Kindly advise US at your earliest con-
vehience, and :oblige, Yours truly,
,ssz G. A. SMITH & co,
Mr.. Biermann himself volunteered
the information. He says in his letter
of:the 23rd in reply to Mr.. Smiths of
the 22nd of Jan. ''As you are cutting
offzsec. 26, next to it, and it will likely
burn next spring, it (sec. 36) will be in
danger of fire. What a bugbear that
fire demon was to Mr.. Biermann. A
man named Lindsay did cut some tim
Der for c.. A. Smith & Co. that year in
the NW4 of Sec. 26, but not within q
mile of Sec. &c. There are several hun
draAd million feet of pine timber still
standing in the Mile Laos reservation
uninjured by fire. We call particular
attention to Mr.. Smiths letter. He
asks for the timber to piece out a win
teI's work and as an accommodation be-
cause it had been customary for the
State to accommodate the lumbermen!
Yes, indeed, Mr.. Smith the State has
been extremely accommodating to the
lumbermen-thea accommodations have
been at the expense of the school chill
dren, however. Did Mr.. Smith haul
the paltry 100000 feet that winter?
Not a stick was hauled until a year
later. Yet Mr.. Biermann testified that
he was afraid if he did not sell it to
Mr.. Smith at that time the lumbermen
would all move away and it could not
be disposed of at any price.
! 81 IT WAS A VALUABLE SECTION.
Sec. SO, township AZ, range 26, was
lors.of the best sections in the three
I ttbWnships comprising the Mile Laos
reservation. It was worth more than
all the other four sections. Is it not
passing strange that there were no bids
received for this prime section of tim
Der when all the others we're disposed
of without the least trouble? Six mil
lion feet of excellent pine timber-logs
that would take about 81 to the thou
sand-within A. or five miles of a safe
| driving stream could find no purchas-
ers! If the truth were known, we be-
! lieve, it would be discovered that not
one of the five sections in the reserva-
ton was sold at public sale.
| WHY DATE BACK THE PERMIT?
If Mr.. Biermann imagined he had a
| right to dispose of pine stumpage on
school lands whenever and to whom he
chose; if he was convinced that his
action was strictly in accordance with
law, why date back the permit he gave
! Smith & Co. to the time of the last
public sale? Mr.. Biermann states ir
his address THAT it has always beer
the practice Of the Office to date such
permits back to the date of last publ,
SALE" That is conclusive evidence thai
neither Mr.. Biermann nor his prede
cessors deemed private sales legal.
! THAT FAMOUS OPINION.
In his address to the public Mr.
Bier1nann quotes Acknowledgement
Childs' opinion. But Mr.. Biermann il
careful not to give the date of that opin
ion. When did Mr.. Biermann seek the
attorney-general's advice? The orig
inal opinion as it came from the attor
ney-general's Office is before US. It il
dated March 23rd, 1898, one year an6
two months after section SO had beer
sold to Smith & Co., and one month
after the legislative committee hac
commenced to investigate. What par
ticular transaction was that opinion in
tended to cover? Or was it asked fol
and obtained as a sort of a blanket en-
dorsement of Mr. Biermann's illega
acts? The opinion itself does not re
fleet much credit upon the attorney
general. Certainly it is not good law
But although the opinion is faulty, had
Mr.. Bierman obtained it prior to the
date of the sale to Smith & Co., i
would have been evidence of good faith
on his part.
THE LOW ESTIMATE.
Mr.. Biermann says of the estimate
.'Judging from the comments made BY
the court and press the public may b.