The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-09-19

read it over, but only to note certain
features of it. He said:
Mr.. Johnson Comments.
It seems to be very volurninous. am
surprised at the shifting of responsibility
onto the shoulders of the former deputy
auditor, and so far as l have been able
to examine the detailed statement 1 am
| greatly surprised at the superficial man
ner in which both the principal and for
mer deputy handled the subject.
The examination made by the en-
ployees of my department took the stump
! age record, which is by law made the all
important and final record, a basis.
and went into the cruisers correspond
ence and reports for additional informa-
tion reference to which should have been
but was not made, on the stumpage rec
ord
If any errors were made as to the facts,
1T was because Of the incompleteness and
deficiency of the record. 1t Is true that
the preport treats of permits issued prior
to 1895, but it does not deal with any
that had been issued long enough prior
to that time for the statute of limitations
to cut them out. There were the open
accounts in the state s assets, and it was
clearly the auditors business to close up
all of those old accounts and collect for
the state all moneys due Hereunder.
Every permit then as now provided that
the purchaser should take all Of the tim
be rof merchantaHle dimensions, this he
agreed to take and pay for and gave a
bond as surety for the fulfllment of his
contract. If the timber was there when
the permit was given, the responsibility
from that on rested with the purchaser,
and the state was under no obligation to
protect that timber, either from fire or
thieves, and the fact that the purchaser
did not protect himself would not relieve
him from his obligation to pay for what
there was when the permit was issued.
One of the most confusing things about
the stumpage record is the fact that the
old permit accounts are allowed to lie
there as open accounts after the permits
have expired. Often these former permit
holders go on to the ground and cut tim
Der and instead Of being treated as tres
passers, as tn claw requires, are allowed
to go without penalty Of any sort.
The so-called explanation of the min
eral lease report is 50 ridiculous and the
absolute Indifference to the express pro-
vtsionse Of the law Is so frankly admitted
that 1t needs no comment whatever from
me. When the final Judgment is passed
upo nthe reports that have been submit
ted to the governor by my department,
can assure you that l will have no apollo
giles to make.
Some Novel Explanations.
No attempt is made to explain the
wide differences in the reports Of the
cruisers. However, the reply makes a
novel point about these reports. They
often reported on a tract that there
thru his apologlsts, says that this
meant no timber had ever been cut
from the land. The book from which
these notes are made contains blanks
to fill out, and one reads: .a,Describe
whether new or old cuttings" Where
the stumps showed trees had been cut
two or more years before, they were
cold cuttings:?' Anything recent was
entered as a |'new cutting.O Follow
ing this was a blank saying, Obstinate
amount of pine standing.' In this
head was entered the cruiser s estimate
of the amount of pine left standing
after the cuttings, old or new.
Another explanation is made as to
sections where The cruisers reported:
"Section has been cut south and west,
or q south and east. - ", The explanation
they said, but thai cutting had been
done on adjoining sections.
In his statement Mr.. Dunn enters a
defense to the trespass reports pub
hshed last spring, which had been al
most overshadowed by the recent ones
He has different figures as to the
amount received for trespass, placing
them at. 1926 a thousand on the aver.
age, and explaining the low price by
the fact that the tracts were scattered
It is a wellknown fact that the tres
passers usually reached over from
tracts which they were cutting to state
timber adjoining, and cut from it the
finest timber, leaving the rest to burn
Yet they were permitted to settle al
a figure usually lower than the current
market value of such timber, tho the
-.
double value. Considerable space il
given by Mr.. Dunn to cases where he
made collections ON small evidence, but
not to the cases that are complained
of in the reports.
A Sample, Instance.
A sample case of permit is that OF
Section 36.42516, issued to William
Sauntry in 1891. The cruiser reported
10000 feet cut in that year, but there
is no record of anything paid for it O.
for any Of the 100000 feet in the esti
was SIS in 1897 for cash sale of tim
Der remaining. The reply dismisses thu
case with the statement that the piec
was burned over in the Hinckley fir
of 1894. Consequently, tho much of i
had been cut, the state did not collec
cent.
With reference to schedule No. 2, tn
reply shows that many of the section
sold had never been examined since
This was the point made by the publ
examiner, who found these fifty min
sections with permits outstanding whe1
Mr.. Dunn became auditor, on whic
there was on further record. The repl
shows some of these burned in tn
Hinckley fire, and the state instead o
the buyer in the role of loser. Wit
reference to some, explanation is mad
which does not show on the stumpag
nrI hlt in q nf
only, note is "no examination whic
is a confession that no further atter
ton has been paid to them, and that
whether cut or not, the state has neve
received q cent.
AS to other cases, the reply says
quite gratuitously, '.probably neve
contained any timber,,''. but does. no
give any grounds for this supposition.
MIR. DUNN'S REPLY
Full Text of the Former Auditor