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

guessing was not evidence. But the
estimate shown to the investigating
committee did not show up in court.
Mr.. Clark was closely questioned as to-
the disposition made of the estimates
and appraisals. He blandly informed
the court that quite number of these
important papers were not on file in
the auditors Office, and the estimate
and appraisal of sec. 36-42-26 was among
the missing. Regarding these APP
praisements ex-Auditor Braden testi-
fled as follows:
@. Were the appraisements usually
in writing?
A. Yes sir.
@. Was there any particular system
of preserving those appraisements?
A. The appraisals were made out in
little blanks that were prepared and
signed by the appraiser, and these
were filed away consecutively by town
and range.
@. State whether or not, if you know.
there was any special custom about
preserving those? -.
A. Yes sir, certainly, they were filed
away in the vault with other papers
and were intended to be preserved the
same as other files.
r @. AS matter of fact in great
many cases they were not preserved?
A. No sir, think they were usually
preserved, because they were intended
to be kept.
@. In cases where they were not pre-
served it was the exception rather
than the rule?
A. Yes sir, they were intended to be
kept.
Neither Auditor Biermann nor ex-
Auditor Braden would swear that Sec
ton 36-42-26 had been estimated and
appraised as provided by law. The
fact of the matter is Sec. 36-42-26 was
never estimated or appraised by and
in behalf of the State prior to JAM
26th, 1892, the purported date of the
sale to G. A. Smith & Co. We chal-
lenge Mr.. Biermann to produce the
man or men who estimated and ap-
praised it. Mr.. Biermann cannot pro-
duce the written estimate or appraisal
for there never was one filed in the
State Auditors office. If there was
one filed, what has become of it? This
section SO is within what was formerly
known as the Mile Laos Indian reser-
vation-Mr. Smith in his letter to Mr..
Biermann makes mention of that fact
and the State was not supposed to have
any right, title or interest in the school
sections within the limits of the reser-
walton until about two years ago.
Senator Davis was laughed at when he
went before the Interior department
officers in Washington and laid claim
to sections SO and 16 in each of the
townships comprising the coded Indian
reservations. No Mr.. Biermann, we
do not believe section 36-42-26 nor any
/ other school section in the Mile Laos
reservation was estimated and ap
praised in 1889. And as for that fear
fully and wonderfully constructed book
of riddles known as your sales record
bool1-lose it as soon as convenient.
, NO DOUBT OF 1T.
MI. DlCiIldllu dSSefGS. AL d I6Su
, larly advertised sale held on Septem
Der 26, 1891, I sold one hundred and
eighty-six tracts of pine timber, and al
the adjourned sale on December 7, fol
lowing, sold 124 tracts. All of these
except sixty-eight tracts, were esti
mated and appraised by my prede
cessor, The average price for timber
, sold, and subsequently cut, at these
; two sales was $1.76 per thousand feet. ,
Then he goes on to say that if the sale
} of section 36-42-26 was illegal all the
other sales were made contrary to law
He forgets that private sales are not
. authorized by law. He is presumed tt
! have complied with the law when he
3 sold at public sale. But on his own
: showing we have no doubt but what
many of the sales were contrary tt
: public policy if not contrary to law
Were all these 80 tracts subject tt
t l waste or destruction by fire? Or were