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

Under date OF Dec. 10th, Hon. A.
Biermann, State Auditor and State
Land Commissioner, issued lengthy
address to the public in explanation
and justification of his action in selling,
at private sale, and contrary to
. law, the pine stumpage on section Sc,
township AZ, range 26, the same being
a school section, to c.. A. Smith q
Co., of Minneapolis at $500 per M.
When the minority and majority re-
ports of the Legislative committee APP
. pointed to investigate this particular
transaction we're, being discussed in
the house last winter, the friends and
apologists of Mr.. Biermann expressed
themselves as perfectly willing that
the matter should be passed upon by
an impartial judicial tribunal. Their
wish was gratifed. A court of COM
petent jurisdiction has passed upon the
matter and decided that the alleged sale
was without authority Of law, hence null
and void and further that the timber
already cut by Smith & Go. on said
section WAS reasonably worth 81 per
thousand feet. The decision was an
: able and exhaustive one, and is re-
garded by. reputable lawyers through
out the State as a correct interpreta-
ton of the laws governing the sale of
pine stumpage on school lands. Not
withstanding the decision of the dis
trict court Mr.. Biermann still main
tains that he was justified and that the
law conferred upon him the power to
sell the timber in question at private
sale.
HIS MAIN CONTENTION.
Mr.. Biermann's main contention is
that he followed the precedents of his
illustrious predecessors; that it had been
customary to dispose of pine stumpage
on school lands at private sale. That
is no Justification at all. Mr.. Bier
mann was elected to office as a ''re-
former The battle cry of his party
in the campaign Of 1890 was ''Turn the
Rascals Out!'' ''Let Us Have a
Change" Moreover, he was the can
didate of the Populists as we'll as the
Democrats. Certainly he was not ex-
pected to follow in the footsteps of his
''corrupt'' Republican predecessors.
Better things were expected Of him.
Mr.. Biermann' s immediate predecessor,
W. w. Braden, swore before the legis-
lative committee that he had never
sold an acre of virgin pine at private
sale during his term of Office. But
whether Mr.. Braden did or did not sell
at private sale is immaterial as far as
the case under discussion is concerned
THAT SALES RECORD BOOK.
Mr.. Biermann lays great stress upon
the sales record book. He claims that
the said section SO twas on the sales re-
cord book when I (he) took charge Of
the Office" and he deemed that con
elusive evidence that the section in
question had been duly estimated and
appraised. This sales record book was
not exhibited to the legislative com.
: mittee. Mr.. Biermann was asked tc
produce the estimate and appraisal oil
section 36-42-26. His clerk, Mr.. Matt
Clark, did produce what he asserted
was the only estimate they had in the
Office. It was simply a township plat
and the only writing or figures upon il
were ST. AZ, r. 26'' and section IS was
marked 100000" No date, no name
of estimator, nothing save the letters
and figures here quoted. The sales re-
cord book showed up on the floor of the
house in the hands of the Hon. P. B
Winston on the night the reports O.
the committee were under discussion
That sales record book was offered il
evidence in the district court. There
were entries in the book that its Gus
todian, Mr.. Matt Clark, could not ex
plain. While Mr.. Clark was guessing
at what some of the entries meant
the court pointedly informed him tina