Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1894-11-01

restitution to the state forms an interesting
ard instructive chapter of political history.
These facts are now laid before TIE people
OF Minnesota in their entirety for the first
time, and every voter Is asked to study
them carefully and to consider their bearing
upon his action at the coming election.
The subject of Illegal appropriation OF
nine timber belonging TO the state was
first brought to the public notice Just prior
to the meeting of the last state legislature.
State Auditor Biermann had advertised for
sale the land Of the famous section 80, ait
erward the subject Of SO much controversy.
At the sale referred to the land was not
sold and the lumbermen interested were
told by Mr.. Biermann. on inquiry, that thls
land had been withdrawn, because 1t was
already sold to G. A. Smith & Go. Mr.
Hermann first stated that 1his bad teen
done at prior public sale: s1terWard ne
confessed that the sale was private. S,'veral
persons DESTROYS of purchasing THIS sectlon'
because of the excellent quality Of its tim
her. were indignant at this, and proceeded
to Investigate into the facts.
Biermann's Deal With Smith & Go.
IT was found that Mr.. Biermann had been
approached by parties DESTROYS OF purcnas-
Ing, and that an arrangement had Deen luaoe
beforeh and, the substance OF which IS IouDo
in a letter written Jan. %, lS02 by MI.
HERMANN to c.. A Smith s. Co. This firm
had Informed him that they were cutting
timber on the adioining section, that there
was not sufficient Of it to make full sea-
sons work. aud that they would IKE 10
nurchase the timber on SO In order to I'LL
out. In his letter Of reply occurred the 1ol-
lowing significant sentences:
"While the estimate Is not large, nave
no doubt but it will cut double the amount
estimated. I do not make it rule to sell
at priV q
cutting on section 26, next to it. and it will
likely burn next spring, 1t will be In danger
of fire next spring, I will let you have It
ut So 25 per thousand and give you to June
/, 1898, to cut and remove the same
This is good sample Of Mr.. Biermann's
generous and accommodating disposltlon.
He had no doubt it would cut double the
estimate He did not make 1t rule to
sell at private SALE He had an idea that
this particular section would burn by the
following spring If G. A. Smith & Co. did
not get it, and they finally did get it, not at
81 a thousand, which competent judges
afterward testified it to be worth, not even
at at &c. &: as Mr.. B'srn'nn haa written Du'
IT was the knowledge Of these facts that
prompted the legislative investigation, ana
legislative committee to look into the
matter. A majority Of that committee, con-
sisting Of one Democrat, one Popullst and,
at the last moment one RePuoaean ran
Mr.. Dunn and Mr.. Fleming filed minority
report containing the damaging evidence
Not satisfied with that, Mr.. Dunn then in
troduced the following resolution, whose
passage he secured April IT, 1888
Resolved, That this house of representa-
tives, the senate concurring, does hereby re-
quest the governor to take such prompt ac-
tion as he may deem necessary to secure a
full and further investigation In the courts
of the sale Of section 81"
Why Lumbermen Hate Gov. Nelson.
This threw upon Gov. Nelson the entire
responsibility Of bringing to justice the dep
III is by his faithful discharge OF that duty
that he has won their active opposition and
undying enmity. The governor at once set set
became convinced that the transaction was
c. A. Smith & Co, in July, 1893. Iii ex-
Biermann's defense was simply that he had
q right, under the law, to do what he had
done.
Mr. Biermann Lad stated in the permit is
sued that there were 100000 feet Of tint
Der, whereas, in fact, there were $500, 900;
bep ON Mn Section s Sc on JAM e. 1862 at private
dated it back to Dec. !, 1891; This was be-
aa ad there had been no d R mot sole aek n
the matter too carefully would not discover
the fact Of the private SALE
Mr.. Biermann stated that the timber had
been properly estimated and appraised; the
court found that no estimate or appraisal
had ever been made.
The court, after hearing the case, can
celed the permit, thereby giving back to
the state 100000 feet Of lumber, and found
that the timber which had been cut was
worth 81 per thousand, although Mr., Bier
given In favor of the state, and the amount
paid over to the state as a result of this
suit was $1O,3O2.4S.
The Frauds Were Run Down.
AS a result Of the investigation instituted
by Mr.. Dunn, the legislature before its ad-
Investigating committee to examine into ali
pine land frauds.
They waited until they saw the outcome
On the strength Of this decision they
have since brought large number Of suits.
The, first were two actions against the 81.
z. Ak {, Lumber company, That involved
two We're to recover damages for cutting
done under a permit issued by the Akeley
company The latter suit was brought to
These suits were brought at st. Paul and
the lumber companies tried strenuously to
remove them to Itasca county, where the
innd IL question Is situated, and where in
fluences favorable to themselves might be
brought to bear. The courts held It proper
TO try the cases at the capital. M
After the motion for change Of venue
had been decided against the companies,
the Itasca company offered to settle BY nav.
Ing $4,000 on account Of timber taken on
two sections -
This does not cover all tho cutting done
by the. company, but only that on the two
sections referred to. = d.
The Akeley company, which held per.
nit to cut on these sections. offered to
Gan 4. that permit; and by its doing SO
$4,000 paid in cash. 10000 feet Of lum.
In the meantime the state had brought
company; the first to recover the value OF
logs unlawfuiy taken, and the second
70 replev1n large quantity of logs which
the company had taken but had not yet
pending and have not yet been brought to
trial. - ~
me proceedings Against Foley.
About the same time suit was com.
menced against T. f. Foley OF Aitkin. The
state &C 1a, claimed that although he had a permit
celled by Auditor Hermann: that Mr. BIER
mann, by some skillful device known only
TO himself, had attempted to revive the old
permit that had been cancelled, and made
Foley cut upon the section 2, 200, 600 feet
OF timber. but reported to the state that he
had cut only about 1000, 900, at the rate Of
$2.l5 per thousand. ia
It was claimed by the state that he had
stolen million feet, and ought to pay for
it on the basis OF what the logs would have
been worth. He also tried to remove the
again that 1t must be tried ut ST. Paul
On the day before the trial. he agreed to
pay $500 :, to settle the case, being at the
which he had taken and failed to report. 53
q. 1t cost Mr.. Foley 81 per thousand to cut
fhe logs and put them In the boom, SO that
the logs for which he settled actually cost
81 N I4o sold <favvH H.