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

shown by the fact that out Of 700 reported,
SOL, averaging SCI. AS each, were committed by
small Ioggers and irresponsible parties and by
settlers. The average amount of each of the
100 eases less than $4,000 feet. The aver
age price per thousand feet obtained for timber
regularly sold prior to 1895 was $1.S1 thou
sand, and up to 1898 the state did not average
more than S254 per thousand feet at regular
nitted during my administration was prior to \
1885,, yet the average price obtained by me for
trespass 1925 per thousand. Mr.. Johnson
to the public that it was cheaper to trespass
than to buy timber during my administration.
Consider for "a moment 700 separate and dis
tinct cases of trespass. scattered over an area
of at least 80, 900 square miles and averaging
$4,000 feet to each trespssser, and In all the
previous history of the state these small punches
of pine had melted away. If the entire 80, OO0,-
900 feet Of tresnass committed during by adj
mlnistration had been conferred in one township,
1T would have been five times more valuable than
scattered over the area in question. For in
stance, one section may contain 100000 feet
OF pine, and that pine today would be worth
probably $4,000. Scatter that pine over an
entire township and 1t would not be worth one
third the amount. Scattered timber is practi
cally valueless and can only be sold to small
jobhcrs and farmers. Nine tenths of the tres
pass was on small, isolated tracts and anyone
mon sense, can perceive that it is
unfair of Mr.. Johnson to compare the prices
obtained for trespass in isolated tracts with the
selling price of timber in solid, compact bodies.
1t is also unfair Of Mr.. johnson to compare
prices obtained for trespass in the early years
of my administration with the prices obtained
during the first year Of Mr.. VERSIONS administra
tion when timber had risen In value from 300
to 400 per cent. In many instances I was
obliged to take the actual value Of the stumpage.
and Mr.. 1verson has been obliged to do likewise
In numerous cases. l said at the time of Mr..
Johnsons first report that ''the reasons We're Civ
en- and noted on the stumpage records where
trespass cases were settled for less than double
| and treble damages. TO be sure, when tres
pass first discovered, we invariably made
large demands, and the weaker case the
stronger was our bluff. I remember distinctly
| the largest case of trespass 1 ever settled 1t
appears in the stumpage records 1 demanded
$4,000 or $4,000. The trespass had been COM
m1tted years before into office and the
ground had all been burned over. All our
cruisers could find were charred stumps, and
| even some of the stumps had been consumed.
Thru dilgent inquiry on the part of cruis-
| ers we became convinced that certain firm
| which had gone out Of business had committed
| the trespass, altho we had not scintilla of
| the number of feet taken from the section.
AS anyone knows, when you go into court you
| must prove your case to the satisfaction of the
| judge and jury. I had made up my mind that
| the state. and I would have accepted $1,000
If i could not have done better. One of the
| best lawyers In St., Paul. who represented the
firm we suspected, came to the office in response
| to demand, and said substantially: The firm
| represent did not commit the trespass, but
| Mr.. - has retired from business and he does
not wish to be annoyed and is willing to pay
$4,000 Or $4,000 in order to avoid notoriety. l
put on a bold front and insisted $40, 600
! being paid He and 1 wrangled back and forth
for an hour. He kept adding a thousand and
l kept coming down thousand until positively
| declared that $4,000 would be my lowest figure
| He had offered $40 900 and would not give an
other cent, and finally split the difference,
land the next day he sent me check for $11,
600. This Is a fair sample of the manner III
which numerous trespass We're settled by
me. AS q matter of fact, had we gone to court,
we could not have collected single dollar, and
we knew it..
The law fixes n specific amount that shall be
paid for mineral lease and a specific amount
that shall be paid for mineral contract, and
the governor, the jan1tor or the messenger boy
has just as good right to take out mineral
lease as any one else. 1t is all the same to the
state.
1t is preposterous for any one to assert that
the state be robbed or injured in any man.
ner by the issuance Of mineral leases to any per-
son so long as the terms of the law com
piled with. If ore is discovered the holder of
the contract must pay to the state 25 cents per
ton royalty, and 1 know of no possible way in
which the state could be defrauded.
The Mabel Evans Lease.
Mr.. Johnson's report particularly refers to LOT
1, section 6, township 581a, range IT, upon
which Miss Mabel Evans secured a lease. This
tract OF swamp land contains 36. IS acres. Il Sc
leeted 1t and set it apart for the benefit of the
swamp land list was filed in the state land office
I'm order to prevent some railroaIf od pany
from filing on it. as owing to the situation OF
the land 1t probably contains body of iron ore
but apparently one seemed to think much Of
the mineral possibilities of the tract, or else
those who knew Of them were sure Of being able
, to deprive the state of this land by means of
contest, for I have before stated, 1t lay
without any application for year. Any one
. could have applied for lease during that veal
and obtained the same. When the lease was
brought to me to sign during the last days Of my
administra ton I did not even glance at thu
name, and even If had it would not have made
the slightest difference, for would have ISSUED
) the lease just the same. The attorney for the
} lessee G. S. Wilson of Duluth one of the abIes
land attorneys in Minnesota, gave the state thu
benefit Of his valuable assistance, and it was
r largely thru his efforts that the state was en-
; abled to make good Its claim to the land. TIL,
i tract In question was scripped by eastern par
the states claim. The tactics employed wer
dlsreputable In the extreme United States Sur
yeyor General Warner was approached and of
fered large bride to rule against the state but
to his everlasting credit be 1t said, he spurne,
u the offer, and after a hearing reported I'll
Washington that the land was swamp. One o
Z the parties interested in the scripping OF th
7 tract made all sorts Of threats. I was threat
ened. Mr.. Finn was threatened, and he eve
e undertook to bulldoze Mr.. Iverson. My only con
d nection with the matter was in urging Mr.. war
ner to file the tract in question in the auditor
]ofhce as swamp land, and in the issuance of TIL
lease more than a year afterwards 1t wa
d perfectly lawful act for me to- issue tina
q full act for Mabel Evans nulse' to M re
o ceive It, The present state auditor Samuel G
O 1verson has recognized the validity of the leas
!, issued to Mabel Evans by issuing to her as tn
8 records show, state mining contract under tn
e terms OF the law authorizing the issue OF mir
q eral leases end contracts. I might also ad
II that the attorney for the lessee Mr. Wilson wa
l. | approached and offered large sum if he woul
"a prove recreanr to the interests Of his client
!. 1t Is estimated that there are at least two mi
y lion tons of contained in the tract in cues
ton, and when it Is mined the state will receiy
q q royalty of 100000. I foolish enough
IN Imagine that I was entitled to credit and nc
D censure for taking the initiative to secure thi
+, 1 valuable tract Of land for the state. CertainI
,f-I g. private firm would deal generously with til
- man who secured for it a tract of land wort
n $5oo,000. Mr. johnson lays himself open to til
- suspicion of being in collision with the shark
q who made such strenuous efforts to rob the stat
% of its just dues, for, beyond the shadow {
If doubt the land is swampy in character and RICH
=, " was the property of the state under the swan
\. land grant of 1860 do not claim to be entitle
h to the full credit for securing this tract OF Ian
- for the state, but do assert that had It n,
" been for the 1nitiatory steps taken by me
,s would not have been returned, as swamp an
40 no founda ton would have been laid for ii
:, states claim. That it was lawful for me
issue that lease, altho the state had not at Thu
=, time received patent for the land from til
~ United States government, is shown by the r.
~ suit Of the contest the states title the Sc
e rotary Of the interior in his decision declarir
y that the state became vested with the Title
ia this land on March II, $780, the date Of the al
~ Of congress granting to the state Of Minnesot
- all the swamp lands within its boundaries T,b
D decision 1s one Of a long line Of decisions ar
q has been sustained by the supreme court OF II
a. United States in the case of Wright vs. Ros
- berry (2l .. s. 4ss), which says Of the state
-. swamp land grant: 20 ''The grant in this "a,
~ was preSent grant vpstinp In +ba u+o+o ,,,.-