The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1898-10-27
AUDITOR DUNN'S
CLEAR AND Complete REPLY
TO HIS ASSISTANTS.
VALUABLE INFORMATION ABOUT
SCHOOL LANDS, AND A TRUE
HISTORY OF THE FAMOUS
GREAT NORTHERN DEED,


Ankeny, with reference to school lands.
Mountain Iron, Auditor Bierman and my
self. A few days later the Identical letter
appeared in the st. Paul Globe.
Since the first week in September the
state board Of equalization has been in
demanded all my time and attention, 9TH
erwise I would have replied to Mr.. Ankle
nys structures ere this.
1t appears from what Mr.. Ankeny says
that he had written letter to me, and
that had failed to reply to the same At
that time I was in the country at my old
home in Princeton, and Mr. Iverson, my
deputy, informs me that personal letter
from Mr.. Ankeny had been forwarded to
me at Princeton. Anyhow, I never saw
the letter and to this day am ignorant Of
its contents. Certainly I would not be
guilty of the discourtesy Of failing to
sWer letter from Mr. Ankeny anyone
else. With reference to the alleged inter-
view in the Pioneer Press and u a
I know nothing. Of one thing I am GER
tain, however-nO one connected with the
state auditors office ever intimated that
ex-Auditor Biermar was in any manner
responsible for the REIMBURSEMENT of the
Mountain Iron property. If Mr.. Ankeny
al re- erred to our report he would have
HnT1 that no ore connected with this
oE!.t Would be foolish enough even to init
mate that Mr.. Bierman had anything to do
with the REIMBURSEMENT of that valuable
property.
BY the way Mr.. Ankeny appears to be
very eager to rush into print to "relieve
Auditor Biermsn from most bungling at
tack Perhaps he can explain why Mr..
Bierman did not expose this Mountain
Iron transaction during the four years he
was in office. Mr.. Bierman certainly knew
of it, but it remained for republican
auditor to bring the matter to the atten-
ton of the legislature. Mr. Bierrnan never
mentioned this Mountain Iron matter in
either Of his two reports to the legislature.
Will Mr.. Ankeny answer why?
There is no doubt there have been some
irregularities in the management of school
lands in the past, and there probably will
be some in the future. There never was
and never will be an 1nfallible state audi
tor In this or any ether state, but on the
whole I assert without fear Of successful
contradiction that no state in the union
has handled its school lands better than
Minnesota. The state has to-day perma-
nent school fund of $l2, 23O, 327.2 20, and a per-
manent university fund of 81, 319 1874, and
yet tWo-thirds of the lands remain to be
disposed Of. The state has sold in round
numbers 1,500 900 acres Of it's school lands.
The state of Michigan received 067, 1877
acres from the United States for school
purposes, and it has practically all been
sold and the sum realized from the sales
amounts to $4644,5 27. Iowa received 1884,
331 acres, of which ,511 ,27 acres have been
sold and s4,7A,O30 realized from the sales.
The above two states received only section
16 in each township. Oregon and Kansas
received sections 16 and SO in each town.
ship, the same as Minnesota. The grant in
the former state amounts to 1929 7O6 acres,
nearly all sold, and only 81, 900 realized.
Kansas, the hotbed of demo-populism, re-
ceived 1901, 1906 acres, practically all sold,
and amount realized 1921 900. I quote the
best states Such good democratic states
as Missouri and Arkansas have virtually
no permanent school fund at all, and even
Texas, with the millions of acres of school
lands, cannot begin to approach the state
of Minnesota. Up to the time 1 assumed
charge of the auditors office, the average
price obtained for school land in this state
was $685. per acre. The sales held since
July 81, 1895, will average 81 per acre. I
unhesitatingly assert that the school lands
Of this state are not being squandered but
they are being handled to the best possible
advantage at the present time. Many
changes have been made in the law govern
Ing the sale Of school lands, and pine
timber growing on school lands, to the
great benefit of the state, by the legisla-
lures of 1895 and 1897, and not one of these
measures Is due to any recommend ton
made by MIR. Ankeny or his political
friends. The state auditor has great lat1-
tude in handling the school lands. I do
mot know what methods my predecessors
pursued, but here Is my method: When ]
lind that there is a big demand for school
lands in a county, I arrange for sale in
that county, and as a result obtain good
prices. For instance, at a sale held in
FWilkin county last spring nearly 10000
acres were disposed Of at an average
price of 500 per acre, and about $4,000
acres In Polk county at $3.50 per acre. The
time to sell school land is when there Is a
demand for it. Owing to wise provision in
the law Of 1895, each piece of school land
Is advertised by description and not an
acre of school land can be sold unless it Is
80 advertised. The land is not only ad.
vertised in a paper published at the county
seat Of the county in which the land is
located, but also in a paper published at
the capital Of the state, thus giving the
sale wide publicity. Publicity invites COM
petition and competition amply guards tho
interests of the state, regardless of the
appraised price. If the auditor has reason
to believe that there is combination at
any sale to keep down prices, he has a
right, under the law, to withdraw any and
all tracts offered for sale. Furthermore,
he has right to cancel a sale If he sus-
poets fraud. In Pine county I sold forty
acre tract in the faM Of 1895 at the mini.
mum price Of S. per acre. Before leaving
Pine City I learned that there was a dam
rocated on this particular forty. I 1mme-
diately wired to the Office to withhold all
certificates and patents for Pine county
lands until I returned. A couple of weeks
1ater I sent one of my cruisers to ex.
anime this particular forty-acre tract and
he reported that the dam was worth 81, OOO
q Immediately Cancelled the sale and the
following spring resold this same forty ia
the same parties for cash, at an advance Cd
$1,000. In other words the school fund re.
ceived 81. 200 instead Of $500.
Let mo cite another case. At q sale held
!n Mile Laos county in the spring of 1895,
there was brisk competition for several
tracts on the shores of Mile Laos lake.
lOne or two lots were sold as high as s85
per acre. Then the most desirable tract was
fput up. and the highest bid received was
1850. I announced that this was the most
desirable tract upon the lake shore, and
that would not sell it for less than 500
per acre. After some little delay on the
part Of the bidders. it was sold for 500 per
acre. I simply mention these cases to
show how an auditor can use his discretion
to the advantage Of the state. The law
governing the sale Of pine timber on state
lands is a most excellent one, thanks to the
lefforts Of such wise legislators as Messre.
e. r. Staples and J. F. Jacobson Cloth good
republicans). In my opinion the law could