The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-06-11
A Page Of History.

mittee, which was created by the leg
islature of 1893 and reported to
Governor Nelson Dec. 81, 1894.
This committee drew bill regu-
lating the sale of state land and state
timber, and the collection Of trespass,
which became Chapter 163 Of the
Laws Of 1895. It is the provisions of
this law which r. c. Dunn failed to
enforce when state auditor, as shown
by the reports Of Public Examiner
Johnson. That act was carefully
drawn. as the result Of the most thoro
investigation by the committee, which
included Senator S. w. Leavitt and
Representative ]. F. Jacobson, now
members Of the state board of con-
troll, and Representative G. r. Sta
Piles, now railroad and warehouse
commissioner. The law was full Of
safeguards to protect the state tim
Der land, and there was reason for
every one of them.
The report Of the committee was
scathing arraignment Of the admins.
tration of Auditor Biermann It was
shown that the law then existing,
which was far less specific than the
present one, had never been properly
enforced, and the state had lost
many thousands Of dollars. The bill
was framed so as to prevent further.
wasting Of the states sacred trust.
the school fund.
Trespass was lightly touched on in
| this report, for the reason that the
prevailing practice of crooked oper-
ators was to buy state timber at pri-
waite sale without competition and
without estimates, to mark only a
small part of it with the state mark,
and the rest with the owners private
mark, This explains the ). small
amount of trespass reported prior to
that time. However, the new law.
made trespass misdemeanor, and
provided minimum settlement on a
| Der taken.
Permits to cut state timber were
carefully regulated. Among the rec
concentrations Of the committee,
afterward embodied in the law, we
find the following:
| That no permit shall be given to cover
more than two logging seasons, nor more
than one description of land, and no ex-
tension or cancellation thereof shall be
made, and a separate log mark shall be
| used on each description.
That, in view of the worthless character
of many Of the bonds given as surety for
the fulflllment of the conditions Of the
permit, careful legislation should be
| framed regarding the same.
Ihat all reports of the surveyor general
as to the quantity of timber taken from
state lands shall be based upon the scale
made on the land, instead of upon bank
scale, as is now the prevailing custom
That a form of permit, estimate and
appraisal be established by law.
All these recommendations, in de-
TAIL with many others, were carried
out in the bill drawn. However,
when it was presented, r.. C. Dunn
had become state auditor, and he did
not approve of the committee's bill
He drew one giving him practically
as much latitude and discretion as
his predecessor had enjoyed This
bill was introduced, and his friends
fought for it, opposing the commit
tee bill, which barely scratched thru
the senate the last day OF the; session
Mr.. Dunn told members Of the com.
mittee at the time that there were pro.
visions of the bill he did not like, and
that he would not enforce them
The recent reports Of the public
examiner show that he kept his word
Trespasses have been settled ir
| fhoy
required by law. Log marks have moi
been recorded with the permits
Many bonds have been accepted which
failed to comply with the law. Or
Mr.. Molander's admission, the scale
was often made after the logs ha6
been hauled away by a logging road
Permits were not recorded until after
the first or second logging season. II
other details the law, so carefully
framed by experienced men, was FIRE.
quently disregarded. Those who
know the subject best are best able
to understand the risks run by the
4 state on account of this official laxity
The states interests cannot be toe
carefully guarded. Officials charged
; with the trusteeship of the states re.
: sources cannot object to the mos
thoro scrutiny Of their work. Ger.
tainly the tax-paying and voting pub
I lie can make no objection. Wher
flaws are found in an officials record
J criticism Is justified.
! There was reason for the pro
;. visions in the law Of 1895, and a rea
! son for enforcing them. The publ,
has right to ask why 1t was no
! done.
Il Chicago's antibillboard ordinance ha
J been declared invalid by the appellat
court. It's drastic provisions were pro