The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-06-02
'MOLANDER OUT
TO DEFEND DUNN
FORMER STUMPAGE CLERK DIS
CUssES JOHNSoN's REPORT.
He Says the Public Examiner Deals
i'm destinations and Avoids Making
Specific Charges-Denies That State
q Lost Money Thru Dunn's Admin
u istration OF Timber.

r. c. Dunn's reply to the latest re-
port of Public Examiner Johnson is |
made in an interview fathered by !
Swan B. Molander, who was stumpage
clerk in the state auditors office dur
ing the eight years of Mr.. Dunns ad-
ministration, and published In St. |
Paul paper. The interview is remark
able in several ways, but especially Tor
! the things it admits regarding the
| practice of the office in handing
stumpage matters. 1t denies and de-
nounces many of the facts stated IN
the public examiners report, ana dls-
putes the figures in some cases, put
does not present any counter p r4on
The paper publishing the interview
did not publish the public examiner
report, or even a synopsis OF that doc
ument The interview is as folloWS:
The whole report appears to be mace 70
produce a certain political effect Ihere
is nothing new in 1t. The same ground
was gone. over by the legislative commit
tee when I was called before that body to
explain these stumpaSe matters 10 the
members notice that Johnson Is very
careful not to make any charge OF
spectfic nature against Mr.. Dunn or to
charge him with any crime or offense
against the law. The report Is full OF all
kinds of insinuations and suggestions as
to what the lumbermen might have done
to the states timber-R Mr.. Dunn had
allowed them to have their way.
There Is not line in the report that
saws that foot of timber was not prop
erly scaled and paid for. There is no
charge that the state lost as much az one
dollar thru any neglect In filing log
marks. Mr.. Johnson says that In the
case Of 1856 permits out Of 313 the law re-
lating to the recording of a bark mark
for the first season and a separate mark
for the second season was not Followed
The state timber sales were always held
late in the fall and very few tracts were
cut the first season. Naturally when no
timber was cut or intended to be cut, no
bark mark was recorded FOR that season.
and this Johnson pretends to regard as
violation Of the law.
The important question is: Was there
a tract of state timber land cut over dur
ing the first, second or third season with
out bark mark having been recorded
in the name Of the state OF Minnesota
In addition to the stamp mark, MIN.
with which all state logs are marked? Ii
not there was no failure to comply with
the provisions Of the law There Is no
law requiring a permit-holder to cut the
timber Or any part thereon the hrst sea-
SON, and If there Is no timber cut, why
of course, there is no mark required or
designated.
Denies Any Loss.
The state has not lost dollar
thru any neglect Of filing log marks.
Every foot of state timber sold and cut
It was bought. Every log cut on state
land Ia stamped MIN" which Is cut IN
the end of the log. The bark mark cuts
very little figure, and Is more TOR the
protection of the lumberrnan himself
fhan for the state. 49,.
Johnson charges that the permits
were not promptly recorded, but there Is
no requirement In the law that tney
should be recorded within any certain
time. Since logging railroads have been
f1nya TT-l
no such thing as a definite boundary line
between the districts Of surveyors gen
eral. as logs are hauled out OF one DIS
trict into another and the 1mportan
thing is to record all marks and paper:
pertaining to such logs, in the d1strlc
/ to which they are hauled and not wher'
/ thew were cut Recording Of marks ant
permits IS for the protection or men Wh
deal in logs, to identify owners OF marks
to facilitate the filing of Hens, etc, an
until the state auditor learned into Wh1c
district the logs would be hauled, no re
cording was done, the provisions OF tn
law being applied in practical way t
meet new conditions which did not ex1s
to any extent when the law was enacted
AS to the scaling Of logs, In ever
case where there existed any reason
believe that there had been any under
scaling, the state cruisers reported tn
case to the office and a rescale would
demanded by the state. This was ais
done in cases where the surveyor Seilei
= ais scale showed less than the estimate
and was done without any reference
the bark mark or the stamp mark.
In every instance the interests Of tn
state were protected. ."..-
Says Permits Aren't Void.
Mr.. Johnson states what Is not trr
when he says that large percentage
the state timber permits are void or tbs
any of them are void or voidable, OWN
to what he alleges, the existence of tecf
nical errors in them. He Is guilty OF d.
liberate falsehood when he asserts tn
any considerable number Of permits WEI
not recorded and I defy him to point
single instance where the state hi
rn1ffarad the loss of a dollar on any tin