The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-10-05
IVERSON REPLY
BADLY TORN UP.
EXAMINERS MAKE TIMBER RE.
PORT EVEN STRONGER.

RoIGSs duu 10 IsoAoSSou W SAaQtoC a11U
Verse-Wholesale Neglect to Enforce
Permit Contracts, and to Collect on
Timber Gut.
Another broadside was issued from
the public examiner g office today, in
OF his predecessor 8 conduct Of state
timber interests.
The employees Of the public examiner
are analyzing the 1verson statement,
case by case, showing the correctness of
their first statement and the inadequacy
OF the cases additional evidence is pro-
duced from the records, still more dam
aging to Mr.. Dunn. Mr.. Iverson made
the point frequently that the permits
We're issued previous to the Dunn adj
ministration, and the examiners are
cited were clearly under Mr.. Dunn IS jur-
lsdlction when he became auditor.
AS to sections burned in the Hinckley
fire, the examiners show that they were
partly cut before the fire, and the state
did not receive payment either for the
timber that was cut, or the timber that
was burnt.
Specific Cases.
AS to Section 16-43-l6, on which per-
try, Sept. II, 1892, on an estimate Of
$50 900 feet, the examiners call atten-
ton to the fact that the permit had ex-
PRED before the Hinckley fire, and the
state should have gotten the money for
the timber. There was nothing received
on that permit.
Section 18-5O-23, issued to Powers &
Dyer, Aug. 80, 1880, and estimated at
&c, 900 feet was reported by Dedon in
1898 as cut five years before. No effort
| seems to have been made to trace these
cuttings and collect from the owner of
| the permit or any one else.
Section 36-48-24, on which permit No.
GAG was issued to Knox & De Laittre,
Sept. 26, 1891, at So a thousand, was
then estimated at 100000 feet Tho no
cutting was done under this permit, De-
don estimated it at 100000 feet on Oct.
IA, 1895. On Oct. 80, 1895, the east half,
cash sale for $3.50. The first permit,
on which at least $3.50 should have been
realized was never enforced. Mr.. liver
son g reply said he could find no report
from Dedon as stated. The examiners
refer him to Land Examiner s Book l,
As to Section 36-56-21, the public ex-
aminer's report merely call led attention
to the estimate of 100000 feet and the
cut Of 1927 400 feet. In the examin-
er' s deductions, they call further atten-
| tion to the fact that this cut occurred
in 1897, after the permit had expired. It
for at permit prices.
Lost BY Second Sale.
| AS to Section 2O-43-21, on which per-
NIT No. 605 was issued in 1891 to Da-
yid Tozier, and nothing ever paid, Mr..
lverson calls attention to the cash sale
of the section in 1895, at $50. The ex-
aminers reply that more would have
been realized by the state if Mr.. Dunn
had enforced the terms Of the first per-
NIT.
Section 2-49-23 is a complicated case
but the examiners make the fact stand
and never paid for, and T. r. Foley, who
held the permit, was not held to any
account: for it by the auditor.
J! Section 36-46-15 was sold to Mr.. saun.
TRY in 1898 at 1915 thousand. He did
not cut it, and was not held responsible
altho it was offered again in 1897 at an
estimate of $1.75, bringing $3.50 at auc
tion SALE Ties were cut in trespass
estimated at $475.25, for which only
$l33 WAS received
AS to section 16-4s-l9, permit 1,011
issued to F. W. Bonness in 1893, Mr.
Iverson stated that the reason no cut
ting was reported was that the timbe,
had probably been cut under previous
permit. The examiners reply that this
fact should have been determined, anG
if so, the permit should have been can
celed.
No Excuse for Neglect.
Mr.. Iverson admits as to section 1e
1923 that four or five million feet wer,
Gu, and never eyer paid for, altho the rpiec.
planned that the last cutting had bee1
nine years before the examination. TIL
examiners show from Dedon's repor
that the cuttings were nine, five an,
three years ago, so that the later cut
tings should have been settled for.
the last time in iss5 At z1id the req time 1
other permit was in force, at the rat
of So a thousand, but Mr.. Dunn sold i
for 81, and did not require it to be Gu
clean: selling the remainder at a cas-
sale for $40.
Counted in Old Trespass.
As As to section lion 1e-48-24 on T yJds 7.
estimate Of 100000 feet, the examiner
found only 1854 feet paid for. Nj
M S's sot i n 1885, he e msaS eG
come back, saying that their statemen
feet to be accounted for. The add
tional $4,000 feet Mr.. Iverson found wa
a trespass settlement back in 1873, 9
| IWeuey years UelOW IHe eSIl1HaCe dH
sale.
On section s-5s.22. cold in 1898, a
an estimate Of 10000 feet, Mr.. Dun
collected only $40 advance money. M
lverson can only explain this by sayin
|. that the estimate must have been e
roneous, as no cutting was reporte,
= The examiners reply by citing the swor
and detailed statement Of Cruiser D
7 don, who is always considered reliabl
This statement was ignored by Mr.. I've
son.
II Two permits on section 34-5O-22 1
Knox &, De Laittre were not settle
for, and the examiners found a recon
of cold cuttings.' Auditor Tversc
dug up trespass case to explain thes
and the examiners take this up, sho1
ing that Dedon reported 1877 500 feet ,
trespass,. and only 10000 were settle
for. Also, the audito is criticised f,
not enforcing or closing up the old pc
mits.
Both Gut and Burned.
~ Section 15-41-17, sold in 1892 but n,