Morris tribune., 1894-10-24
TIMBER Thieves WAN WAN, !
Eiermann Was a Good State Audito,
For Lumber Companies.

But BOD Dunn and GOV6rnO
Nelson Brought the Lumbe
Companies to Their Knees
and They Have Paid tn,
State Thousands of Dollars
and Will Pay Thousand!
More = How Biermann Dis
posed of Standing Pine.
Every timber thief in the State of Mir
Aesota, every man and every corp CRATIC
that hopes in the future to get pine tin
ber from the states lands without payin
for it its full market value, is honestly i
favor of the election of Mr. A BiermanI
| as state auditor, and Mr.. 8. NJ Owen q
governor
| This rather remarkable condition O
things requires some explanation; and th
explanation afforded by an investigation
OF timber frauds in the past. and by tn
tSidcacc produced in the suits which hav
compelled restitution to the state form.
an interesting and instructive chapter o
political history. These facts are nov
laid before the people of Minnesota IL
their entirety for the first time, and ever,
voter Is asked to study them carefully ant
to consider their bearing upon his actor
ut the coming election.
The subject of illegal appropriation ol
pine timber belonging TO the state wal
first brought to the public notice JUS
prior to the meeting Of the last state legis
latYre State Auditor Biermann had ad
vertised for sale the land of the famous
section 36, afterward the subject of 81
mus controversy. At the sale referred to
the land was not sold, and the lumbermen
Interested were told by Mr.. Biermann, on
inquiry, that this land had been with
drawn, because it was already sold to G. A
Smith s. Co. Mr.. Hermann first stated
that this had been done at prior public
sale; afterward he confessed that the sale
was private. Several persons desirous OF
purcAas 'ng this section, because of the ex.
cellent quality of it's timber, were indig.
pant at this, and proceeded to investigate
into the facts
Biermann's Deal With Smith s. Co,
It was found that Mr. Hermann had
been approached by parties desirous of
purchasing, and that an arrangement had
been made beforehand, the substance of
which is found in letter written Jan 90,
1892 by Mr.. Biermann to G. A. Smith &
Go. This firm had informed him that
they were cutting timber ON the adjoining
section, that there was not sufficient Of ii
to make q full seasons work, and that
they would like to purchase the timber on
sc in order to fill out. In his letter of reply
occurred the following significant SEN
tences;
sWhile the estimate is not large, / have
no doubt but it will cut dou. lie the amount
estimated. l do not make it a rule to sell
any stumpage at private sale. As you are
cutting on section 26 next to it, and it will
likely burn next spring, it will be in dan
ger of ftrU next 5PrirIg una viii 4pC YOU
have it at .25 per thousand and give you
to Julie !, 1898, to cut and remove the
samoa
Iicrma>4n Was Generous, But Why9
This is good sample of Mr.. Riermann's
generous and accommodating disposition.
He had no doubt it would cut double the
estimate, He did not make it 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 thousand, which competent judges
afterward testified it to be worth, not even
at 1925, as Mr. Biermann had written,
but at 50.
1t was the knowledge of these facts that
prompted the legislative investigation,
and Mr.. r. G. Dunn secured the appoint
ment of legislative committee to look
into the matter A majority of that COM
mittee, consisting of one Democrat, one
Populist and, at the last moment, one Re-
publican reported in favor of letting the
matter drop Mr.. Dunn and Mr. Fleming
fled a minority report containing the
damaging evidence Not satisfied with
that, Mr.. Dunn then introduced the fol-
lowing resolution, whose passage he Sc
cured April IL, 1898:
Resolved, That this house of represen-
tatives, the senate concurring, does here
by request the governor to take such
prompt action as he may deem necessary
to SECURE full and further Investigation
in the courts of the sale of section &c."
Governor Nelson Acted Promptly and
vigorously.
This threw upon Governor Nelson the
entire responsibility of bringing to justice
the depredators on the pine lands of the
state 1t is by his faithful discharge of
that duty that he has won their active op-
position and gndying enniitY. The gov
ernor at once set on foot an investigation
Of his own, and became convinced that the
was shady one. A suit was
brought against G. A. Smith 8 90. In
July, 1893. In explaining his connection
with the matter, Mr.. Biermannis defense
was simply that he had right, under the
law, TO do what he had done.
Trial Disclosed Some Queer Things.
On the trial of the case it appeared that
Mr.. Biermann had stated in the permit is
sued that there were 10000 feet of timber
whereas, in fact, there were s,s00, 600; and
while Air. Aiermalin had sold the timber on
Section SO On January 26th, 1892, at pri--
vate sale, yet when he made out the per,
nit, he dated it back to December Tth,
1891, This was because there had heen a
public sale upon that date, and one who
did not look into 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 ap-
praisal had ever been made, -
The court, after hearing the case, can
cel4ed the permit, thereby giving back to
The state S,0OO, 600 feet of timber, and found
that the timber which had been aut was
worth 81 per Thousand. although MIR.
Hermann had sold it for 81. Judgment
was given in favor of the state and the
amount paid over to the state, as result
of this suit, was $1O,302.4S
Determined to Run Down Pine Lsnd
Frauds
AS result of the investigation insti-
tuted by Mfr Dunn, the legislature before
its adjournment appointed general pine
land investigating commituee, 70 sxSNinI
into all pine land frauds.
They waited until they saw the eutcoms
Of the Smith case.
On the strength Of this decision, they
have since brought large number Of
suits. The first were two actions against
the H. C. Akeley Lumber company. Thest
;nvoIved two different sections of land