The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1893-12-14
CHE STATE PINE LANDS
DECISION IN THE CASE AGAINST
@ SMITH.
Judges Baxter and Se,.rle Declare
the Sale of the Pine on school Sec
t'"n jG, Township AZ. Range :>G,
Skf'ie L'scs County, Wa. Illegal

IN the case of the State of Mime.
sofa against G. A Smith 6 Co. OF
Mil neapolis to set aside and anrul 4
private sale of the pine in section BE-
! township AZ, range 90, the same being
Il section Of state school land. and t.
secure Il refund to the state of the value
or inc timber cut thereon by the de-
PENDANTS, has been decided ON every
point in favor of the state by Judges
Searle and Baxter, Of the Seventh Judi
;lai district. The action originated from
a resolution introduced into the last
! mousse OF representa- by Hon. Il. G.
Dunn Of Princeton, Mile Laos county.
! Inc memoranda of the Judges in the
case is as follows:
! Inc governor of this state caused this
action to be instituted in behalf of the
state against the defendants under and
! pursuant to Il resolution passed by the
! legislature at its last session, for the
| purposes of canoeing a pretended per-
| mt and contract for the sale of nine
! tilrper made to and with the defend
| ants by the state auditor, as commits
! sloner OF the state land Office, authoriz-
Ing the cutting Of pine timber from T.
| sectlon OF school and in Mile Laos coun-
", ana for the recovery Of the market
! value Of the timber cut under snch mr.
| init prior to the commencement Of This
| suit The state claims that the timber
! was worth more than the contract price
Tor Which it was sold, and that the
state auditor had no authority to issnc
the permit Or make such pretended con-
tract. for the reason that such timber
was sold at private sale and not at pub
NC auction as required by law, also be-
cause the timber was not subject 70
waste, destruction or damage: that no
proper appraisal or estimate was maf,c
ol lne timber prior to such sale, ~,
mat the governor treasurer and COM
missioner, or a majority Of them, did
NOT state that it was for the Interests
OF the state that such timber should
De SOLD, or that such sale was necessary
TO protect the state from loss.
Inc defendants claim that the agreed
price - per thousand feet, was ali the
tlhat'er was worth; that the sale was
regular III all respects: that it was
ulaue IN accordance with the establish
ed practice of the state land office: that
It has been repeatedly ratified, and that
the state auditor had ample power to
sell the timber at private sale. The ac
1oh IS. therefore, of great public i'm
l,oltance, involving, as it does, a Dues
tlo1l as TO the power of the state audi
Tor, as eX officio commissioner of the
s1ltc land Office, to sell pine timber
oelonSlnS to the state, his duties in
connection herewith, the manner of
sale and the rights Of parties dealing
with him.
me written permit which the state
seeks to cancel is regular in form and
valid on its face, but the evidence
SHOWS that many of the recita]s con-
ta1hed therein are untrue in fact The
permit was dated Dec I, 1891. and
states IN effect that the sale was made
on that day to C. A. Smith: that such
sale was public; that due notice thereof
was given for sixty days prior thereto:
mat the timber had been properly es-
tlmated and appraised before the sale;
mat such estimate and appraisal had
oeen submitted to the other state Of
hcers whose duty it was to act thereon.
ana that they deemed the timber to be
SUBJECT to waste and destruction and
lhe SAFE necessary to protect the state
from loss; and further that the timber
was estimated at 100000 feet and that
n" sale was made at s. per thousand
[ect. Whereas, in fact, the permit was
not issued until Jan. rs. 1892, at which
Time the sale was actually made, the
sale was made to and for the benefit
u the defendants Jointly, and was pli-
waite, and no prior notice thereof what
ever was given; the required estimate
'r appraisal Of the timber was not
made before the sale or submitted to
such state officers whose duty it was to
act thereon, neither did said officers
state or certify that they deemed the
tlmDer TO be subject to waste or dcs-
Sruction, or that the sale was necessary
to protect the state from loss.
Inc evidence also shows that there
was at least 100000 feet Of good.
thrifty, growing pine timber upon the
|and IN question at the time of the sale.
reasonably worth 81 per thousand feet
stumpage.
1t was and is the manifest intention
81 the people Of this state. as expressed
IN the several statutes. to protect and
preserve our state lands and the timber
thereon until they can be sold to the
oeSt possible advantage, and that when
Ihe sale is made, either of the land or
The timber thereon. which constitutes
part Of the realty, that the public
shall be fully advised Of tho time, place
and manner Of sale, in order that all
who desire to purchase shall have an
equal opportunity Of so doing. and that
there shall be fair and open competi-
ton at such sale, to the end that the
state may receive the highest possible
price and its citizens be fully protected
IS to all their rights in the premises.
The defendants contend that even if
the sale was void in the first instance.
It has since been ratified by the state.
we think differently The constitution
ana laws Of this state define the DOW
ars and duties Of it's executive officers.
These laws constitute the authority,
and limit the powers conferred upon
these officers, under which they must
act IN matters of this kind. No execu-
tive officer can legalize his own unau-
thorlzed act, or the unauthorized act Of
another executive officer, so as to multi
fy the requirements of a legislative en-
actment. The state is not bound by
an act Of it's officers or servants ma(tc.
contrary to an express provision of the
statutes, and such act can only be rati-
he'd by the law making power of the
state No such ratifica ton has been
shown in this case.