St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-01-15


single item of Information concerning
this item OF saving. The only informa-
ton the public has is that contained In
the statement above quoted. The pub
lie has the Information, but the stale
has not received the money.
As to the suits pending, much may De
said. If it was the original purpose ot
the committee to establish and dehne
the authority of state official, and to
make each official responsible for his
acts, the cases now in court. or on the
way there, have directly opposite ten
dency. Take the case of The State
against Powers & Dwyer as an Instance.
In this case the company cut the timber
in dispute on an original permit lsSueu
by Auditor Braden, the contract price
being 50. ~ per 1000. The logs were,
according to the testimony OF Wit
neSSeS,
Ola Very Inferior Quality,
this testimony being confirmed by the
fact that the logs sold in the boom at
MINNEAPOLIS for S625 per 1000. Ac'
cording to the report of the surveyor
general there were cut and scaled 2.500,-
900 feet. The committee rescaled THIS
cutting and claimed that there had
been 5,000,000 feet cut. 1t would nat
urally be expected that the committee
would sue for the other 2,50O,000 feet.
But they didn't. They ignored the
2,50O.OOO cut, sealed and account
ed for. and sued for the entire
amount. fixing an arbitrary price on the
logs regardless of the market price,
which. as shown, was S6.25 per 1,0OO.
The logs were valued by the committee
at IS per LOCO, and an actiln begun for
the recovery of $4,000. This is mag
nifcent sum, and rounds out the APP
pearaace OF the report beautifully, put
as n simple proposition Of business eth
les it is either Il monStrOuS farce Or
monstrous injustice. Either the auditor
had right TO issue this permit OF he
had not. If he had, then the company
had right to cut the timber, and even
if the amount cut was greater than that
reported by the surveyor general tue
trespass could in no way be construed
as Willful, and all thas could be collect
ed was the contract price-Whlch the
company offered to pay. But the
committee brings its suit on the
theory that the permit was
Invalid because the auditor ala not Sc
cure the Joint signatures of the gov.
ernor and treasurer. If this is true, 1t
would then seem to Le simply ques-
ton as to whether the auditor Or MS
bondsmen were liable to the state Tor
the damage accruing by the issue or an
invalid and unwarranted state license,
which is the character or the permit 10
cut. Either the committee has over
Ieaped or fallen. short of its whole duty.
Ii the permits of this character are
Not Binding or the State,
then Is per cent of all the timbers cut
in Minnesota within twenty years was
trespass and the cutters liable 10 the
state, for they were practically all
issued III the same way.
If the contracts or permits, on the
other hand. are valid, and if the state
has suffered loss therefr0m. any one,
except a lawyer, will see at a glance
that the auditors who issued them are
liable for damage.
With one exception, all the other
pending suits are practically or the
same character. as that against Powers
E Dwyer. The exception is that OF the
case against f. G. Webber, Of Pine City,
involving 81. l40.l0, the alleged value OF
certain hardwood logs cut. The dispute
in this case was simply as to the value
of the logs or stumpage. The logs were
in the boom at Pine City and we're at
tached by the committee. We0Der
claimed that they were only worth s5U0,
and offered to make settlement on
that basis. The committee refused, ana
Webber, being 4 Door man, was not able
to furnish bond and assume the expense
of replevin. And the attachment held
the logs. The attachment was strong,
but the law of gravity was stronger, and
as time wore OH the pine tioaters
dropped loose from the oak logs and the
latter dropped TO the bottom OF Cross
lake, where they are still safely slowed
under forty feet Of
Good Snake River Water.
If the state of Minnesota ever realizes
one dollar cut of those logs it Will have
to call out the militia and have 1t dive
for the logs in question.
The suit against the Shevlin-Carpen-
ter company is now pending and on
trial IN Minneapolis before Judge X US
sell. The question as TO the validity
of the issue and extension of permit Is
the main matter of con tentOn, and,
until this point is decided and set at
rest. the status of the state in the prem
ises cannot be known. One point,
however, was made manifest at the trial
before Judge Russell, and that was that
the committee expert was decidedly
off in his testimony as to the value of
logs. He admitted that he based the
conclusion as to the value of the logs
in controversy upon mere hearsay,
and that he had not bought or
sold logs in the market. He
said he was at one time employed
as scaler and estimator by the St. Paul
& Duluth Railroad company, and that
he acquired his experience there. lnas--
much as the estimates made by him and
L. = in SnhSQ-
quently set aside as worthless. the fact
Of his employment in that capacity will
not add material weight to his tests
mony.
In addition to the "cases' which the
committee worked up i'll its regular
course of duty. it found time to prepare
some marvelously accurate estimates as
to the probable" amount of timber
which had been stolen from fifty Sec
tions of land which passed like a pano-
ramic scene under tie eagle eye OF the
committee. An ordinary lumberma',
who has passed his life among the way
ing pines and whose business it has
been to carefully weigh the quality, size
and density of timber, Ill making an
estimate upon the amount OF timber on
80, 900 acres OF land would consider him.
self an expert If he could tell within
O,UUU,UUU VI lllS SillOulit' wv OO
with the committee. 1t says the amount
cut from til ese fifty sections
Was 7S.I73.959 Feet;
that the amount accounted for by the
lumbermen was %, 234, 113 feet, leaving
so, ,749,S46 feet unaccounted for. The
lumber firms which employ men for this
purpose figure that Scaler, with his as
sistant, or tally man." can scale 100000
feet day. Allowing 81 day for
scaIer. 81. 80 day for assistant and 81
day for the expenses of the two, which
would be all economic expense list, the
expense would be 80 per day, and it
would require about 500 days. or an ex-
pense of about $4,000, to arrive at such a
result, and at that the employer would
be satisfied if the scale bill came within
5000, 600 feet of the actual result. And
vet this committee gets the amount
down to the very last foot, and does it
as a mere incident, kind of appetizer
between drinks, as it were. One of the
experts actually stated that he had con-
sumpd three whole daYS in scaling