The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-09-21
MIR. Films Attempt.

Mr.. Films Attempt.
Mr.. George A. Finn, former land clerk
under State Auditor Dunn, has given
the newspapers supporting Mr.. Dunn for
governor, his reply to the mineral lease
report of Public Examiner Johnson. 1t
is rambling document, chiefly remark
able for it's failure to meet the issue.
Mr.. Finn prefers to talk about some
thing else rather than meet the charges.
In fact, Mr.. Finn admits that he is.
interested in several contracts on state
lands, contracts for which the prelimi
nary leases were issued when Mr.. Dunn
was auditor, and he was land clerk.
These are facts he cannot dispute, but
only, pass over. The record is enough
to satisfy any reasonable man that Mr..
Finn and his assistant, Patterson, we're
using the name Of the latter's sister,
Mabel Evans, to cover up their connec-s
| ton with state leases while they were in
office. With their inside knowledge Of
state land, they were seeking to get
some "good things" without open vio-
lation of the law. Finn and Patterson,
as land clerks, made out the leases AL
ditor Dunn signed them. The name of
Mabel Evans appeared as party in all
the leases. When the year had elapsed,
and the leases were converted into con-
tracts, Finn and Patterson had left the
state employ. Presto-the name of.
Mabel Evans disappears, and the names
of Finn and Patterson bob up most in
nocently, as holders of her interest. How
else would they go about it to evade the
law, and coop out' for themselves
these contracts? This chain of circum-
stances is not explained by Mr.. Finn g
explanation.
Mr.. Finn IS defense is confined to one
case, the only one which is of known
financial Importance. The value of the
other contracts has not yet developed,
but that is not the fault of Messrs
Finn and Patterson. They took them
in the hope of getting good thing, and
they may in time. One contract is still
in the name Of Mabel Evans, and Mr..
Finn denies having any interest in it.
Had he rested his defense there, it
would not have been so bad, but he de-
votes column or 50 to explaining this
contract, which covers the famous
"Sliver' tract, and is known to con-
tain some 100000 tons of iron ore.
Evidently Mr.. Finn realizes that the
name of Mabel Evans involves him
} with the case in the public mind. After
reading the record in the other cases,
the average man will wonder how soon
Miss Evans will drop out, and Finn and
Patterson will become the real owners
of the contract. By his elaborate at
tention to this case, Mr.. Finn makes
this wonder grow upon one. Most of
his reply is devoted to history Of the
famous lease and the state s fight with
claimants, most Of which is familiar.
The point he tries to make in this
long disquisition is that the thanks of
the state are due to the lessee, Miss
> Mabel Evans of Princeton; for the able
!, legal talent she employed to help de.
, fend the states title. But for he1
! counsel the state would have lost the
case, says Mr.. Finn, ignoring the fact
that Assistant Attorney General Som
erby discovered the fraud in the rec
ords, and that Wayne McVeagh, one of
the most eminent lawyers in the coun.
try and former attorney general of the
! United States, was retained by the at.
, torney general of Minnesota to handle
the case in Washington.
> However, this is all foreign to the
issue. Mr.. Finn s friends have under.
, stood for months that he and Patter.
son were the real owners of the con
3 tract. He denies it, but his long de-
) Tense seems a,,labored effort to show
=. that if he is really in the deal, it is
l a good thing for the state. H.. g..
l AS to the value of the contract, Mr.
Finn protests that it is only good fol
:, five cents a ton royalty to the lessee
At the estimated 100000 tons, this i:
only a paltry 100000, but it may ru1
a larger amount. It is to- be hoped
that it will, for the states sake if not
for the deserving lessee. 81
' Incidentally, Mr.. Finn tries to cas-,
a some odium on the public examiner by
s intimating that he is in league will
: the claimants, who tried by unscrupu
= lous means to get title away from the
e state. This is very far fetched. It il
true that the claimants made use o:
r the reported interest of Finn and Pat
e terson to prejudice the states cas-,
l. with the interior department. It may
n also be true, as Finn alleges, that they
n endeavored to blackmail him into civ
L ing up an interest in the lease. II tina
5 is true, it only shows that they under
IS stood his illegal connection with it AM
/ tried to take advantage Of the impend
). ing scandal. ALL this is no reason VIII,
= the public examiner should have shu
Il his eyes to the violation of law. TIL
state's title is no longer in jeopardy
. It has been settled irrevocably by tn,
:, interior department. The question nov
. is the regularity of the Mabel Evan
: contract with the state. It makes NJ
difference to the state, in dollars an,
= cents, who holds that contract, but i
: does make a difference how that con
: tract was obtained. If it was obtaine,
by the states land clerks for thei
own profit, then legal and mora
!, wrong was committed and the offend
. ers should be punished.
Incidentally, it would be interestin
q to read reply from Mr.. Patterson
Il who was most inexcusably careless, an
t. took out two contracts in his own nam
@ while still assistant land clerk, vic
cI Ia 4i,,o +l,o 1o4&o, 4r,,o11 -, II. -