New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-10-31

land investigating COMMITTEES, % axa1n l,iuu q
into all pine land frauds.
They waited until they saw the outoo,u,,a
Of the Smith case.
! On the strength of this decision, they
have since brought large number q
suits. The first were two actions against
the H. G. Akeley Lumber company. Thest
involved two different sections Of land
The first two were to- recover damages To-
cutting done under 9 permit issued by the
Akeley company. The latter suit was
brought to cancel this permit
These suits were brought at st. Paul
and the lumber companies tried strenu.
ously to remove them to 1tasca county
where the land in question is situated and
where influences favorable tothemsalva
might be brought to bear. The1co hello
1t proper to try the cases at the capital.
a.&,s offered to Pay the State 5000
After the motion for change of venue
had been decided against the companies
the Itasca company offered to settle By
paying $4,000 on account Of timber
taken on two sections -~r .*2: 70
This does not cover all the cutting don't
by the company but only that on the two
sections referred to.
The Akeley company, which held a per.
NIT to cut on these sections, offered t6
cancel that permit; and by its doing SO
the state recovered, in addition to thu
$4,000 paid in cash, 100000 feet 0;
timber.
In the meantime the state had brought
two actions against the Shevelin-C arpen.
ter company: the first to recover the VALUE
of logs unlawfully taken, and the second
to replevin large quantity of logs which
the company had taken but had not YET
sawed into timber. These cases are still
pending and have not yet been brought t.
trial
The Proceedings Against Foley,
About the same time suit was com
menced against T. r. Foley of Aitkin
The state claimed that, although he had 8
permit to take timber, that permit hac
been cancelled by Auditor Braden; that
Mr.. Biermann, by some skillful device
known only to himself, had attempted tc
revive the old permit that had been can:
celled, and made no objection to Foley's
cutting under it.
Foley cut upon the section 2,000, 600 feet
OF timber, but reported to the state that
he had cut only about 10000 and paid
the state for 100000, at the rate of S. Ii
per thousand
1t 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 case to Itasca county, but the
court decided again that it must be tried
at St. Paul.
And Foley Offered to Settle Out of Court.
On the day before the trial, he agreed to
pay $500 to settle the case, being at the
rate of $3.50 per thousand fer the logs
which he had taken and failed to report.
1t cost Mr.. Foley 81 per thousand to cut
the logs and put them in the boom, so that
the logs for which he settled actually cost
him 81. SO per thousand. He sold them
by written contract to N. P. Clark of St.
Cloud for $3.50 per thousand in the boom.
This is financial measure of his anx-
iety to close up the deal without the help
of the courts.
Other Cases Are Awaiting Trial.
Three more cases have been commenced
against the Itasca Lumber company, and
are now pending, awaiting trial. There
are also pending one case against Thomas
A..Shevelin and one against Powers &
Dryer, a case against Stephen B. REYNOLDS
and another against F. G. Weber.
The last two cases are small, as far as
amounts involved are concerned.
The state, however, is endeavoring to
establish the principle that the auditor
has no right to grant permits to take
hardwood timber from the state lands
There is nothing in the statute which
permits the auditor to sell hardwood
stumpage, but Mr.. Biermann has made it
constant practice to sell it whenever op-
portunity offered The loss to the state
has been very great in cases where hard
wood timber has thus been sold and re-
moved from the land, for the value of the
land to future settlers is greatly dimin-
ished, if not destroyed, when all the hard
wood timber has been cut.
The theory of the law is that the hard
wood timber must be sold with the land
itself and that the land will bring a much
higher price with the timber than without
it, as every farmer wants some wood on
his land and will pay to have it.
Large Returns to the State.
The state has already recovered, through
the actions enumerated, $4,000 in cash,
besides the timber recla;Sped. There is an
indefinite amount to be recovered in the
future, for the supply of cases seems to be
inexhaustible
1t is no wonder that those who are in
terested in the defense of such suits; and
in preventing others from being brought,
should leave no stone unturned to put 9
stop to investigation and prosecution.
The issue is clearly joined between the
friends of the people and the preservation
of the property of the state and these pub
lie spectators.
Mr.. Biermann has justly earned the
title of their faithful friend. The men
who have pursued and are still pursuing
and bringing them to justice are Knute
Nelson, the Republican governor and can
didate for governor of Minnesota, and
Robert G. Dunn, the Republican candi-
date for auditor of state.
1t is small wonder, therefore, with this
startling and shameful array of facts in
view, that every man whose interests lie in
a dishonest appropriation of the pine land
of the state should be fighting Nelson and
Dunn, and devoting himself night and
day to promoting the election of the men