The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-10-22

The republican state committee is max
ing a bad record for accuracy. in its Of
fetal statements defending Mr.. Dunn. For
instance in reference to the Buchanan
trespass settlement, it attempts to divide
the responsibility between Mr.. Dunn and,
other state officials and in so doing mis-
states the law. The committees state
nent says:
In regard to this matter of timber trespass
and the caring for the sale of state timber, it
should be noted that section is of chapter l63,
of the laws of Minnesota for 1895, creates state
timber board, consisting of the governor, state
treas urer and the state auditor who are Jointly
responsible and have equal powers and RESPONSE
bilittes. This board has to pass upon all mat
tiers relating to state timber and 1t 1s made the
F.! duty of each member of the board to carefully
examine into all matters brought before them.
| The governor member of the board, Is
given a separate power to appoint cruiser OF
| his own in order to make careful and
| thoro examination and inspection Of all timber
alters. Neither the governor nor any other
member of the board divest themselves Of the
duties and responsibilities of their position
| as members of the board, but are responsible for
| all acts of the board.
The law referred to is very different
| from the statement of the committee. It
limits the authority Of the timber board
! to deciding what timber shall be sold,
fixing estimates of value, and extending
permits. 1t has nothing whatever to do
| with trespass in any way. This matter
is expressly put in the hands of the state
auditor as land commissioner, by section
| SO of the act, which reads:
The land commissioner is hereby authorized and
empowered to compromise and settle any case Of
trespass upon such lands, whenever, in his judg
ment, it is for the best interests of the state to
make such settlement; provided, however, that in
no event shall he settle any case of trespass
on such lands until he has had the timber taken
under such trespass scaled and appraised by a
state estimator and the written report thereon
made and filed in the office of said commissioner
as herein provided; and provided. further that
he shall not make any such settlement for an
| amount less than double the value of such tim
Der, shown by such scale and appraisal
By this section, Mr.. Dunn was alone
responsible for the Buchanan settlement
and all other trespass transactions. Nc
other section Of the law relieves him OF
responsibility. The STATE committees at
| tempt to divide the blame for the trans
action shows that even Mr. Dunn's man.
ayers think of it, but the law is plain
and the blame rests on his shoulders
alone.
In his speech at Hawley Candidate
Dunn declared that he was in no way
responsible for the defeat of Judge Doug.
las in the state convention. Douglas
friends have hardly recovered their breath
after the establishment they felt at the
! audacity of the statement. The members
of the Clay county delegation had perso.
nal knowledge Of the facts and they are
4 pretty well understood now by the par
tizans Of the Moorhead jurist. -i-
It was evident from the start that the
Interests behind Dunn had marked Doug.
ylas for defeat, because of his part in the
merger litigation However, they were
not so anxious to beat Douglas as the!
We're to nominate Dunn, and after tho
Clay county convention met one of the
! MO TO fho oto ~.
man of that delegation, Sheriff Bayer
and offered to assure Douglas nom
nation if Clay county would switch
i from Collins to Dunn. A consultation wa.
held, and Judge Douglas himself rejected
the proposition, declaring that If he couli
not be nominated without sitting the fire.
voice Of his home people. and withou
trading for votes, he would take defeat
There was no question about the Dunn
managers authority to make the deal
4 and he offered to put it in writing. H,
expressed his regrets at the failure t,
. reach an agreement, because of his per
sonal friendship for Douglas. As he pre-
dicted, Douglas was defeated, and afte
the convention another Dunn leader, I.
personal friend of Douglas, told hin
frankly that he was beaten because h,
q had refused to come into the Dunn camp
Every detail of the pre-conyention figh
s was carried on under the eye of the can
didate himself, and it is impossible TO
j him to escape responsibility for wha
!. was done. Reports from Clay county in
j dictate that the attempt to deny a mani