The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-09-15

OF Enforce Lne1r terms, have the state
very heavily The records show the estimates
upon which the permits were based to have been
very unreliable, often estimating but few hun
dred thousand feet of logs on section, when
In Iact, thefe4 We're as many millions. This
makes it impossible to estimate the loss that the
state has sustained in the hundreds of cases
forth il schedules ~ and 49, hereto at
stached These cases, like great many Others
We're open accounts Jan. l. 1895, and allowed
to run indefinitely, without cancellation or ap-
parent effort to enforce protect the states
rights. ~ 7 49,
Extended Without Authority.
It is with the records for the period 1s95-19o2
inclusive, that this paper deals. The facts
hereinafter set forth in schedules Nos 81" and
''2 show that permits to cut state timber is
sued from 1888 to 1894, inclusive, were allowed
to run, and that timber was cut hereunder for
several years after their expiration and
after the new law Of 1895 had taken eff
feet, the price of pine materially increased
| and that no Endorsement of extension by the gov
ernor, state treasurer and auditor, required
by law, was made thereon Also that quanti-
ties of timber cut for which the state re-
celved no payment; nor do the records show any
effort to collect for it, or to ascertain the den-
tity of or to punish those who may have taken
1t illegally or with fraudulent intent (See de-
tails in schedules hereto attached.)
This report deals only with a sample lot of
such cases as were open contracts ON Jan. 1,
1895, and only such cases as were safely within
the statute of limitation and which show direct
money loss to the state, and with one hundred
| and sixty-one (16D cases. most of which were
contracts with persons who and still are
perfectly responsible. They contracted to pay
the state for all timber that stood on the land
| at the time the permit was issued. The law
calls for annual settlements with permit hold
ers, and at the end Of the life Of the permit,
for full payment of all timber that on the
land when the permit was issued, no matter
whether it had been taken off by the purchaser
or not. All timber left on the ground when the
| permit. expired altho to be paid for by the pur-
chaser is nevertheless the property of the state.
| The records do not show that any attempt has
ever been made to enforce this law. which was
enacted for the purpose of compelling the pur-
chaser to cut the timber clean, to be careful
| not to waste 1t, and to take the poor as we'll
| as the good. If any allowed to be left,
| 1t would always be the poorest. The law has
| always required that permit holders should give
good and sufficient bonds, guaranteeing that they
would fully comply with the terms of the con-
! tract and provisions of law: yet in all of the
hundreds of contract violations shown by the rec
| ords not one case is shown where any legal steps
| have been taken to enforce the terms of the con-
| tracts upon either principal bondsmen.
| Schedule No. l will show you how the loss to
| the state is proven in a sample lots of hum
dred and two (102) cases, each covering a
| section.
| Schedule No. shows sample lot of permits
issued to cut pine timber, all clearly within the
jurisdiction of the state auditor after 1895, on
which the stumDage record shows report of
timber cut money paid. Neither has there
! been any timber sold from these sections since,
nor do the records show that any effort has
| ever been made to find out how much timber has
| Deen cut from these n1ty-n sections.
| If the cruisers estimates as much too
low in these ISL sections mentioned in schedules
| ~ and - as the records show them to have
universally been, where the timber all
| tually measured, then the loss to the state from
| the various causes herein and heretofore
toned has been almost beyond estimate
| Respectfully submitted
| S 7. Johnson,
| Public Examiner.
The following is partial list of the
16l cases cited in schedule No. l. The
first one shows a sample egularity,two
permits having been issued on the same
tract. Only 691,261 feet were settled
for under the first permit, while the
chuiser found 100000 feet cut during
the life of that permit, and before the
second was issued.
| SCHEDULE NO. I.
Section 1e. Township So, Range 22-The stump.
age record shows cut on this section, in 1892,
by II. F. Brown of ,72O feet. 1t does not
state under what permit that cut, il
| there price per thousand given. Under permit
No. 424 covering 2, 45o 900 feet, dated Oct II.
1890, sale price 1925 there is reporteda cut Of
BOT 800 feet as per surveyor generals report Of
April "a, 1898. Under the permit, pre-
sLma bly,, there is another cut Of 1891, feet
reported by the surveyor general March 81,
1894. On Oct 20, 1894. there was issued another
permit, No. lila, estimated at 1000 900 feet,
and sold at $2.15 per thousand to NJ. J. Bourke.
Under this permit there were ss0,93 feet cut,
reported by the surveyor general April Is, 1897.
Zone hundred and ninety thousand feet left
standing June, 1897. Section was cut in 1894.
about 100000 feet. Section was cut in 1867
about 100000 feet by J. P. Sims, and landed
In Swan lake. Timber left scattered
tion and he ought to pay for it, as he only took
the best this winter. He should also pay for
last winter" 1t will be noted that under per.
nit No. lila there were $50, 900 feet cut as
above reported. Dedon corroborates that cut and
says there We're million feet cut in the winter
i of 1861. The aggregate cutting, Of the first
| three mentioned cuttings inS1S92-94 is SOL POL
feet, whereas Mr. Dedon says there were 6oo0,-
1000 feet cut. That leaves over $500 900 feet to
be accounted for. The records do not contain
any information whatever concerning 1t, do
they indicate any effort to get evidence or collect
SIT 225 belonging to the school fund.
| Section SO, Township 49, Range IS, and Secs
ton SO, Township 80, Range 10, Permit No.
114s-1ssued Oct: 20, 1894, expiring in 1885, estt-
mated at 100000 feet and sold at 50 per thoua
sand. Another permit, No. 1147 issued Oct. 20,
1894, estimated at 100000 feet and sold al
5000 per thousand. Both Of these permits were
Issued to R. E: White. On Aug. q, 1885, the
surveyor general reports a cut Of 1920 feets
on Feb. l6, 1880, cut of 2,260,57O feet and on
March %, 1895, cut Of 1,343so0 feet, amounts
ing to total of f. 1858 $40 feet, figured at permit
prices, amounts to SS,ss7.4e. On May rs, 1885,
! there was $4,000 paid account Of this, leaving
balance unpaid of s8,3S7 40. R. E. White
failed in 1895, and this So, 500 collected by
| the attorney general and credited to these per-
mits The collection made appears to
have exhausted the assets left by the insolvent
White. The permits above referred to se-
cured by bond signed by D. D. Garvey and e.
u. Anory. There is evidence that any at.
tempt was made to enforce collection Of the
states claim from these bondsmen. No corre~
spondence has been found to indicate that they
were looked up as to their financial responsible.
ity.. Since the examination of these accounts by
/ this department, have learned sufficient ta
+ form the opinion that, if the bondsmen had been
called upon to pay for the cuttings made under
! the permits the claim could have been enforced
i Section SO, Township 81, Range %. Permit
No. 452-Issued Sept r. $780, to Hall & Ducey
Lumber company, estimated at 500, 900 feet and
sold at $215 per thousand. The, surveyor gems
eral on April 49, 1891 reports cut of 1, $40, $40
feet, and another cut reported April q
1892 this permit for i 25S,420 feet. Total
feet cut under this permit, 3,O9s, 800 feet. In
4 June. 1895, Cruiser Dedon says that at least
4 900 feet of good pine has been cut from
4 this section, two three years ago. This would
make it appear. that there were really 5000 900
Il feet Of timber cut under this permit, and little
! over 3, 100000 feet paid for The rest is not
accounted FOR in any manner, and nothing ap-
pears to- show that any effort was ade to locate
1 same and enforce payment j
i Section 16. Township 80, Range SW, Permit
No. 73l.-Issued toWflliam Sauntry, Dec 4 1S91s
estimated amount of timber being 10000 feed
and the estimated value of $2.25 per thousand.
ron June 1, 1908 Cruiser Mckenzie reported that
| the section had been cut south and west and
1 that there 1000 600 feet left on the sec.
ton. There is record of anything having
been paid because of this permit because oA
| the cutting reported by Mckenzie. ,
| Another permit was issued on Oct. 81 1909
4 being No. Se3 B, stating the estimated amoun&
Of timber to be cut hereunder 4 O0O 900 feet
. oS1t hAa afaI 1oI,, -