St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-04-16


SO hoafse he could speak only by a
great effort.
Shooting at Random.
Mr.. Abbott expressed desire to hear
the evidence before the house should
take action on either report. He was
not willing to blacken any mans char
acter without hearing the evidence on
which he was to act.
Mr.. Young asked ii there was any
evidence to show that the timber wasin
danger of being destroyed by fire.
Mr.. Dunn replied there was not; that
the auditor had, by his own confession,
taken the word OF c. A. Smith d Co.
that such danger existed.
Mr. Zelch asked il the auditor had
not found the appraisal OF Sl.75 per
thousand on the books when he assumed
Office.
Mr. Dunn did not think there ever
was a lawful appraisal made.z-The only
evidence they had on that point was
small slip of paper of no value.
Mr.. Cole asked why the auditors
books had not been asked for, and Mr..
Dunn inquired why Mr.. Cole himself
had not asked for the books as MEM
Der of the committee.
Mr.. Young said there was no political
question at issue. The parties purchas-
| ing were just as biamable as the man
| who sold the timber. There was little
doubt in his mind that fraud had been
perpetrated. and the house should rec
! Ommend to the governor. as embodied
in the minority report, that it be rectl-
| fed by the courts.
Mr.. Cole, of Otter Tail, said the rea-
| son that impelled him to sign the major
! ity report was that Mr. Dunn had not
| allowed Auditor Biermann to produce
witness to show the value of the timber.
Mr.. Dunn emphatically denied that
he had prevented any witness from tes-
tifying.N What the auditor wanted to
| show was the value of logs i'll boom at
| Minneapolis and Saltwater.
Mr.. German asked Mr.. Young if he
had read the evidence in the case.
Mr.. Young retorted by asking if there
! was any evidence to show the law had
| been complied with. Practically the
same question was asked by Messrs.
| Rleecker and Abbott.
Mr.. German replied in each case that
| the auditor had found the land listed OH
the sales book by his predecessor and
supposed it was all right, as he was
| justified in doing.
| Lumbermen All Right.
Mr.. Howard said the house could
| hardly vote and decide intelligently on
the matter without hearing the evil
| dence. Mr.. Dunn's filings at the dis
honesty of lumbermen showed conclus-
| lively to his mind that the gentleman
from Mile Laos was prejudiced
Judge, whose deductions could not be
relied on. lie defended the integrity of
the lumbermen as whole ana of his
neighbor and constituent, e; A. smith:
In his opinion the house could not base
its Judgment on the findings of the mi
norits> report. No books had been
| brought before the committee from the
auditors office. to ascertain whether his
statement as to the timber being listed
was true or false. and he protested
against the report of the minority of the
committee as smircning the character OF
honorable men without Justification.
Radical Differences.
Mr.. Dunn held that Auditor Bier
mann's own acknowledgements without
the testimony of one witness, showed
that he had done a wrongful act.
Mr.. Winston produced the stumpage
book from the state auditors Office,
showing the appraisal made under MI.
Biermann's predecessor. The present
auditor, he held, had not done anything
| illegal. If he had made a mistake. it
was on the presumption that his prede-
cessor was an honorable man and an hon
est official.
Mr.. Greer said the auditors great
error consisted in not having mis- own
appraisal made until after the timber
had been sold. There was no warrant
in law for the sale as made, and the
court was the proper place to decide
what should be done in the premises.
Mr.. Wyman quoted the attorney gen
erals opinion on the sale, and then
went on to say the chairman OF the COM
mittee had gone on the assumption that
the auditor had made a mistake; that
J the accused was bound to prove his in
nocence, rather than that the committee
should prove him guilty.
Mr.. Fleming said any one who &C
cused him of being biased did not know
: what he was talking about. He did not
care about the case, on which he had
t served simply because called upon to do
r so as a member of the house. Then re-
4 viewing the history of the sale, he said
. he had signed the minority report be-
! cause he believed it to be correct. In
. his we'll considered opinion the timber
) was unlawfully sold at private sale. and
: he Wodld have signed the minority re-
: port even though every member of the
( | Republican party had chased him to do
1 otherwise. On the evidence there was
r irregularity, and the wrong should be
S righted by the conseryatorS OF the wei
/ fare of the state.
Blocker Refused to Vote.
: Suddenly Mr.. O'Neill moved the
!, previous question on the adoption of the
! minority report. The motion prevailed
j and the roll call was begun. Mr.. Alb
bott, first on the list, was excused from
voting on his statement that he did mo-
e know anything of the evidence. Mr.
e Anderson, the next man, asked to be
It excused, but his request was denied, a:
= were similar requests from Mr.. BJorgt
:. and Mr.. Blocker. BjOrge voteC
d no. but Bleecker declined to vote
!. The speaker directed the clerk to RECORD
e the fact on the journal, with state
: ment as to the circumstances. A doZer
k other members asked to be excused
: from voting. but the house would no
relent, and finally even Mr.. Abbot
g voted. Mr.. Blocker stood pat, how
, ever. ard he was the only member pres
h ent who did not vote. His case will III
d doubt create a ripple on the Legislative
: sea Monday morning. The result o
g the vote on adoption of the minorit.
d report is here given:
u Yeas
d Abbott. Geissler, Nelson,
" Anderson, Greer, Paulson,
Il Benner, Gntterson, Peterson,
Chesley. Holman, Rieh'son, A. O.