St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-12-16
AUDITOR BIEkMANN'5 DE-
FENS e.

Oi TIC Sldtts Id WHOM Hc 10 dCCoutitaOlO
for the discharge of his duties, state
ment giving frankly the methods of his
office in relation to the pine of the state,
his justification for selling the tract
about which so much political racket
has been made, and in which one ambi-
tious aSpirant thinks an authorship is
wrapped up for himself, and his reasons
for selling it at the price obtained. With
this explicit statement, having nothing
to withhold or conceal, Mr.. Biermann
appeals to the sense of fair play OF the
voters of the state.
His defense of his action groups itself
under two heads. He claims that he has
the power, using his discretion, to sell
the pine at private sale; and second.
that he used this discretion in this case
wisely, and in the best interests of the
state. He shows that private sale,
when the circumstances made it clear
that the state would probably suffer loss
if the sale were postponed to the date of
the general sale. has been the uniform
practice of his predecessors. Gov. Pills
bury testified that 1t had always been
done, and was done while he was gov
eruor. More than that, the present at
tOrney general of the state, who had
also been assistant attorney general
for four years. we believe, was and is of
the opinion that the auditor has such
authority.
Whether he has such authority in
fact will be determined in the Smith
suit by the supreme court. Whichever
"a InfA
whether that the auditor has Or has not
the authority, the fact remains that Mr..
Biermann had abundant reason in the
custom Of the office. in the wording of
the act of 1885 and in the subsequently
given opinion of the attorney genera!
to believe that he had the right to make
the sale. The case does not run on all
tours with the pure assumption by some
officer of an authority unsupported by
all ambiguity in the law, precedent in
official action or the opinion of the law
adviser of the office; but it is the case
where all of these conditions existed
and support the action of the officer.
The second question is: Was the au
ditor justified in accepting 81 thousand
feet as the fair value of the pine? No
one supposes that the state auditor has
any personal knowledge of the pine on
any of the state lands, or of the many
conditions which affect its market val
ue. The law does not require him to
have it. He has to rely on the Judgment
of the sworn cruisers of the state, men
supposed to be competent and honest.
Their reports are entered on the records
of the office, and are the guide for his
judgment il accepting offers of pur-
chase. If they are incompetent or dis
honest, the auditor is helpless and the
state defenselesS. Mr.. Biermann found
on his records such reported appraise-
lnent, in which the value was placed at
Sl.75 thousand feet. The GLOBE
happens to know what the auditor
does not - that this appraiSement
was made by the cruiser while sitting
in a saloon in Little Falls, who says that
it was "a great deal easier to make an eS-
innate there than after trudginG through
the woods" Then there was the eSti-
mate of the two land appraisers selected
bv the county commissioners of Mile
Laos county, and sworn to appraise the
pine on the land at value Of Sl.30 a
thousand. 1t bears somewhat On the
character of the witnesses on whom the
district court depended. evidently, that
one of these same appraisers testified
before the committee that the pine was
worth 81 a thousand, and, when con-
fronted with his sworn return, coolly
replied that it was always customary to
make a low valuation as starter"
and ito give poor men chance" That
a man who will lie about one thing will
lie about all is familiar maxim of law.
In addition to these evidences of
value, which were of record in his office
when he made the sale. was the SUISSE
quent estimate OF the regular cruisers
Of his office, who placed the value at 50,
and the testimony of every lumberman
who knows anything of the pine, its 10
cation and the markets, that that sum
was its full value. But whether it was
or not, whether it was worth more Or
not, the auditor was justified by the rec
ords of his Office in believing that the
| pine was worth less than what he got
for it.
Ii, lil6Il, MI. DlGIludilu LldQo d HIS
take in regard to his authority uuder
the law, it is a mistake the attorney
general of the state shared with him.
LII he made a mistake in regard to the
value of the pine, 1t was mistake rest
| ing on the sworn estimates of the en-
| ployes of the state appointed especially
to value lands and pine. This, we are
satisfied, Will be the judgment of all
| fair-minded men who care to get at the
facts and base their Judgment on them.
No intimation has come from any rep
utable source that anything in this
| case reflects on Mr.. Biermann's integ-
rity. The farthest that any have gone
| in their inability to forget that MIR.
| Biermann is Democrat is the express
| sion in mock seriousness of hope that
Mr.. Biermann may be able to clear his
skirts, ETC., covering a covert insinua-
ton that he had acted dishonesty. In
| the reputation which Mr.. Biermann has
established in his long public service of
unflinching and unbending honesty, he
can safely ignore both the insinuations
of some and the more open charges of
smaller fry who hope to be the residu-
airy legatees of any feeling they may
| create.
NO MORE ROTTEN BORs
OUGHS.