The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-10-07
MORE DISSECTION
FOR Mr.. IYERS0N
PUBLIC EXAMINER MAKES SUP
ELEMENTARY REPORT.
It Shows that Mr.. Iverson's Defense Of
the Dunn Regime in the State Audi
tors Office Is Composed Principally
of Holes-Auditor Errs in Commits
sion or Omission. -, b..


today from the office of the public ex-
aminer, Analysing State Auditor Iver-
son s recent statements in defense of
Il. Q. Dunn s administration of state
timber lands. The public examiner has
taken up the different cases in detail,
OF those mentioned in the report.
In near ly every case taken up the
analysis shows that Mr.. Iverson either
confirms the original statements of the
report, or that he hasfallen into some
error in attempting to correct them. He
cred on the record by the public exam
lner>s employees, or he has failed to
state facts correctly. ~
The last installment Of cases contains
several of interest, and throws some
furt her light on, methods in The audi
tors office.
1s3,6OO Feet Missing.
Mr.. Iverson s explanation with re-
gard to section 36-54-25 is dissected by
the public examiner. Dedon reported
cuttings by Seeley, amounting to 304,-
100 feet in the winter of 1894-95, but
tn the Surveyor , S0 roo generals report only
Iverson says Dedon s scale was made
from landing which he thought came
from state land, but there was no salts
factory proof. In reply, the examiners
show from Dedon s correspondence that
he reported only one-third of the logs
marked with M I NJ, and asked if
he ought not to scale from the stpasp,
state land. In another letter he re-
ported 3O4, 100 feet cut from the state
section, but only the 120,59O feet were
ever collected for. If the cruiser IS sug-
gestion had been followed there would
have been a check on the permit holder,
who could have been made to pay for
every foot cut
Permit 1888 was issued to William
Sauntry, Dec: T, 1891, on section 1858
25, estimated at $4,000 feet. In 1898
Dedon reported all but one-quarter cut,
and estimated 265,O0O feet left, which
was sold. Mr.. Iverson corrects the
statement as to the estimate, showing
that it was 5000 feet, but the exam
liners in reply show a discrepancy. The
stumpage record $4,000. Mr.. Iverson
points out trespass "exacted by Mr.
Dunn,' amounting to $1,000, but the
examiners show that this was in settle
ment of suit brought by the pine land
investigating committee.
shown in Mr.. VERSIONS reply as to sec
ton 36:.55-24, on which a permit was
issued in 1893 for 100000 feet, but
nothing ever paid on it. In 1900 Dedon
reported cold cuttings,'' and about
10000 feet left. Mr.. Iverson says
Dedon did not report cold cuttings,'
but the section burnt over. In reply
B2, page AZ, where Dedon, under oath
reports that there had been old cuttings
and there were 10000 feet Of pine still
on the land. Mr.. Iverson says that il
was, good farming land, and not much
timber, but $500 feet were reported
q Hy Tho 1,r,4
this cutting was back in 1878, fifteer
years before the permit in question was
issued, and the estimate of 100000 feet
} made.
) Two permits were issued on section
2S-6O.22, one in 1892, on an estimate
Of $4,000 feet, on which nothing was
ever paid. In 1897 Cruiser Mcclellan
| estimated the timber standing at 765,
) 900 feet, and in 1900 permit was is
. sued on one quarter, estimated at ITO,
600. Both permits, as shown by the
examiners, still remain open on thu
stumpage record.
10000 Feet Disappears
, A similar case is that of section 30
6O22, on which the first permit, ISSUED
in 1892, shows no report of settlement
altho an estimate of 100000 feet, made
in 1897 shrank to 1876 900 when tn,
cutting was done on the second permi
in 1900. Mr.. Iverson infers that n,
a cutting was done under the first per
nit, but 10000 feet of timber disap
: peared.
a The meaning of the phrase cold cut
) tings' is questioned in the case of sec
: tion 27-59-17, on which the first permi
was issued in 1894. Before the secon
permit was issued, in 1902, the cruise
reported "old cuttings' and "cut al
around.' This, according to Mr. liver
son, meant that timber on the adjoin
ing section had been cut. In reply, tn
J. examiners quote from the record. boo
filed out by Cruiser Mckenzie, Eel
II. 1902, which contains: ,. ..
'sQuestion ll-Give general Gle
!, scription of timber, whether new or oil
l. cuttings, etc. Answer-Old.'
j. There is no record of any attempt t
n collect for the old cuttings from tn
j. holder Of the first permit.
I. AS to section 2456-23, on which
r, permit was issued in 1891, and nothin
/, ever received by the state, Mr.. I've:
J. son says no examination has been mad
s. since that time; that it was swami
d and probably never contained any tin
t. Der. The examiners reply that TT
y timber that was cut collected for, an
v if there was no timber, it should hav
been closed up. He had until 1899
1T reach the permit holder.
l. The Plymouth Linen Laundry.
s. Finest work. Shirts hand ironed. ca
d lars and cuffs finished equal to new.
+ :, DIED IN HIS BED
Body of Carl 0. Carlson Discovered