Little Falls weekly transcript. (Little Falls, Morrison Co., Minn.) 1894-19??, 1894-11-02

~duced in the suits WHICH nave e""p0
restitution to the state forms an lnteIestins
and instructive chapter OF fohsl'al msso.!.
These facts are now laid before the people
~ Minnesota in their entirety for the drst
+,no ana every voter Is asked 10 stuuy
thom carefully and to consider their bearing
unon his notion Mt the coming Ctccton'
Tha snhiect Of illegal appropriation OF
r,no timber belonging 10 the ktato was
frst brought to the public notice JUST frioE
to tho meeting of the last state legisl": ure'
state Auditor Biermann had advertlseu 1oE
s,la rho land of the famous section oo' AT
erw.rd the subject OF so much controversy.
g.. 49, sole referred to the land was not
.n,d and the lumbermen interested were
told nv Mr. Biermann, on inquiry, that tnls
.ond had been withdrawn, because IT was
oIreodv sold to c. A. Smith 4 20. MT.
p,ormann first stated that 1his bad ceen
aono at a prior public sale: '1terwnrd NC
confessed that the sale was private. several
ncr,ons DESTROYS Of purchasing TINS sectlon'
because az the excellent quality OK Hs 'nn,
her. were indignant at this. ana proceeueu
to Investigate into the facts.
niermann's Deal With Smith q TO-
II was found that Mr.. Biermann had oeen
approached by parties desirous OF purchas.
ing and that an arrangement nao Deen ,u""s
beforehand, the substance OF whlcn - 1ounu
IN a letter written Jan. %, 1So2. by hlr.
Riermann to G. A. Smith {; Co. Ih's nrh
had informed him that they were cutting
timber on the adjoining section, that there
was not Sufficient Of It to make 1,'i, sea-
son,s work. and that they would IKE ~
nurchase the timber on 36 In order 10 mn
out. In his letter of reply occurred INC iol-
lowing significant sentences:
!'While the estimate Is not large l. nuse
M doubt but it will cut double the amount
ostimated. do not make 1t a rule to sell
sny ctu,npage ut private sale. As you are
emitting on section 26, next to 1t. ana II VIII
likeiy burn next spring, it Will be Ill dahser
Of fire next spring, I will let you nave II
at s. Is per thousand and give you TO June
/. 1898, to cut and remove the same.
This is a good sample Of Mr.. Biermanns
generous and accommodating dlspos1tlon'
He had no doubt It would cut doupie inc
estimate. He did not make 1t rule TO
sell Al nrivate sale. He had an idea that
this particular section would burn by the
following spring IL c. A. Smith & co: dld
not eet II. and they finally did get 1t, not at
ID a thousand, which competent Judges
at 1925, as Mr.. Biermann had written Out
It was the knowledge Of these facts tint
prompted the legislative inves1gqt,a tn Of
a legislative committee to look INTO inc
matter. A majority OF that committee con
sisting Of one Democrat. one poPMast anu ro
ported in favor of letting the matter drop:
Mr. Dunn and Mr.. Fleming filed minority
report containing the damaging evidence
tro d the following resolution, whose
passage he. secured April II, 1893:
''Resolved, That tnis house OF representa-
tives, the senate concurring does hereby 70.
ton as he may deem necessary to secure n
full and further Investigation In the courts
Of the sale of section 80.
why Lumbermen Hate Gov. Nelson.
This threw upon Gov. Nelson the entire
of Of nps EtSs st fne .tate
II is BY his faithful discharge Of that duty
that he has won their active opposition anu
undyng enty The ri b,s at once o sei
became convinced that the TRANSACTION was
shady one suit was 49,, proqEe m against IS ey.
planning his connection with the matter, MIR:
Biermann's defense was simply that ne hea
a right under tho law, to do what he had
dCne.
Mr.. Biermann lad stated In the permit ts-
sued that there were 100000 feet ct TIM
Der, whereas, in fact. there were $500, 0oO;
bcr on section 36 on Jan. 20. 1892, ut private
dated 1t back to Dec 7, 1901; This was be-
that date, aad one who did not look into
the matter too carefully would not discover
the fact Of the private sale:
been properly estimated and appraised; the
court found that no estimate or appraisal
had ever been made.
ceIed the permit, thereby giving back to
the state 5000, GOO feet Of lumber, and found
that the timber which had had been e., cut IVA. was
mS1n sold II fSl MT R %a:
given In favor of tho state, and the amount
paid over to the state rs q result Ut this
suit was SIC, 3O2.4S.
The Frauds Were Rum Down.
As result Of the investigation instituted
by Mr.. Dunn, the legislature before its adj:
investisating Committee to examine into ali
They waited nnt,, they saw tn. outcom.
On the strength Of this decision they
have since brought large number Of suits.
The nrst were two actions against the a.
two different sections Of land. The first
Two were to recover damages for cutting
done under . permit issued by the Akeley
eonIp H., The i latter suit was brought to
These suits were brought at st. Paul and
the lumber companies tried stranuously to
remove them to Itasca county, where the
f1uences favorable to themselves might be
brought to bear. The courts held 1t proper
to Try the he. cases ,se:,, at the capital:
bs Se, inc nda6 1or change OF
the Itasca company offered to settle by pay
ing $50. on account Of timber taken on
two sections.
This doas not cover all tho cutting done
sections referred to- .s o"'' '1"' y" 'A' Two
The Aks!ey company, which held . per-
cancel that permit; and BY its doing 10
$4,000 paid in cash. 7,ooo.ooo feet Of lum s
Der. 49,
two actions against the shevelin. Carpenter et
company; the first to recover the value Of
logs nnlawfuily taken, ana the second
the company had taken but had not vet
sawed into timber. These cases are stili
pending and have not yet been brought to
The Proceedings Against Foley.
menced against T. +. Foley Of Aitkin. The
state claimed that, although lie had permit
to take timber, that permit had been can.
mann. by some skillful device known only
10 himself. had attempted to revive the old
permit that had been cancelled. and made
Foley cut upon the section 100000 feet
had cut only about 1000, goo, at the rate Of
1t was claimed by the state that he had
stolen IL million feet. and ought to pay for
It On the basis Of what the logs would have
been worth He, also tried to remove tho
case to Itasca county. but The court decided
again that. it must be tried at St. Paul.
On the day before the trial. he agreed to
rate Of $3.50 per thousand for 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 $11.5O per thousand. He sold them By