The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1904-05-20

The animus and persistence of
the attack of Sam Johnson upon
Mr.. Dunn, in behalf of the capitol !
ring, is as much evident in the
manner in which it was made as it
was in the trivial facts which it
contains. The investigating COM
mittee of the last legislature re-
ported in regard to timber trespass
cases that "the settlements by the
auditor were to the best interests
of the state. This report closed
the subject, but the committee
instructed Mr.. Johnson to examine
certain outstanding railroad, ex-
press, telephone and telegraph
taxes, also stumpage and lndlvld-
ual stumpage and mineral land
accounts which we're cue and some
of which had not been paid. There
is not among these directions the
slightest word whereby Mr.. john
son had authority to investigate
the timber trespass cases, although
there was really no objection by
Mr.. Dunn or by any one else to
any fair investigation or one not
dictated by desire of the ring OF
capitol officeholders to injure with
out cause any political candidate.
Thesstate auditor is not under the
direction or inspection of the state
examiner, except that the state
bank examiner may prescribe the
form of bookkeeping between the
auditors and the treasurer S
Offices, which preceding auditors
had already done. The state aud
itor is no more under the govern
or or the state examiner than is
the secretary of state or the state
treasurer or the attorney general;
he is responsible solely to the state
legislature, and the acts of his
deputy are the same as his own
acts and both are covered by the
same boud. Mr.. Johnson directed
Mr.. Barry to make an examination
of the auditors office. Mr.. liver
son, the present auditor, declined
to allow this on the very proper
ground that the bank examiner
! had no authority, and had received
none, to examine his Office, save
in respect to the telegraph, tele
+, phone, railroad and stumpage &C
counts mentioned above. The
: result was decided difference be-
tween Mr.. Iverson and Mr.. Johnson.
: After some dispute they agreed tc
submit the question of jurisdiction
to the attorney general, and Mr.
Johnson drew up such an unfail
II letter that Mr.. Iverson refused 81 tC
q allow it to be presented to the at
torney general as fair statement
9 of the case, whereupon Mr.. John
son wrote second letter which
: was presented to the attorney gen
q eral, which stated the points O.
. difference and asked for ruling
The assistant attorney general Mr.
Donahower, who is at the presen
if time the attorney general, wrote
q reply sustaining Mr.: VERSIONS con
e tentions and deciding that Mr.
J. Johnson had no right in the aud
a itor' S office, save to examine tn
h accounts already noted. While tn
If attorney general so decided. Mi
ID Iverson, having secured the decis
ion as to the correctness of hi
position, partly because there wa
N no reason why there should not b
is the most rigid investigation of an
Is accounts, as nothing had bee
a done which would not bear TIL
ul strictest examination, and as man
Ie of the acts had been done by him
RS self, finally allowed, of his ow
he motion, Mr.. Barry to examine tn
accounts. The result of this exam
ination the public has already seer
J. 1t simply brought to the public
ed notice the fact that Mr.. Dunn i
or eight years recovered for the stat
20 0,000, where the previous aut
tn itors during a period IN whic
es trespass was far more frequer
st and extensive, had recovered fc
the state in over thirty years on
$12 ,000.-Pioneer Press.