The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1904-10-20
ANENT. LIMBS MISST4TEMENTS.

going on a public platform and at
tempting to cast discredit on the rec
ord of a fellow State official with
| whom when governor he had as a;rule
always acted in official harmony, and
where every act as between the COVER
nor's and auditors Office was always
open and above board-such a spec-
tacle can only be accounted for on
the grounds of spectacular politics.
John Lind stated to an audience in St.
Paul last Saturday night that on
March 3 next his career as an Office
holder ended, and that he would re-
tire to private life. In view of this
statement it ill becomes him to will
fully misrepresent Mr.. Dunn's official
acts in connection with the adjustment
and settlement of the Duluth & Iron
Range railroad land grant, reference
to which is made elsewhere in this is
sue of the Union. In his reference
to this matter John Lind would have
the people believe that his word was
the absolute truth. Talking at ran
dom at a Democratic mass meeting
and playing to the galleries is one
thing, and talking and reporting to
the legislature of the State is quite
another thing. He would not ATTEMPT
to make the law making body of the
State believe such statements as he
made at the St. Paul mass meeting.
AS against Limbs statement let the
public take and place the State audi
tors reports to the legislature, the re-
ports for 1899 and 1900 and 1901 and
1907 in so far as they relate to the SET
Element of the Duluth & Iron Range
land grant. The general public
seldom see these reports as they are
not intended for general circulation.
But the members of the legislature see
these reports, and it would be very
unwise and stupid official who would
attempt to misrepresent matters in an
official report to the legislature. We
do not think John Lind would ever
do such thing, but joni Lind as
governor and John Lind in his politi-;
cal passing are two very different per-
sons apparently. -,
In his report to the legislature for.
l899-1900 Mr.. Dunn devotes over two
pages to the Duluth & Iron Range
grant. He recites the results of the
litigation as to the validity OF, the
grant, which litigation John Lind
rather grudingly states in his speech
was begun at the instance of Mr..
Dunn as State auditor. The report
states that the decision of the court
was adverse to the State and the re-
suits of the decree of Judge Lochren
are given, showing that the road had
valid and existing grant, and that
1t was the owner in fee simple of GER
tain portions of the grant heretofore
decided it by the State, and that it
was entitled to fill the balance of the
grant of 606, 720 acres from hitherto
undisposed of swamp lands in St.
Louis, Lake and Cook counties, and
that the State should allow the com
pany to make it's selections of such
lands "from time to time as it may
elect
The decree further states that the
act of the legislature of 1893 compel
| ling the road to select it's full Quota
OF land within two years was null
and void as impairing an obi CATION
of contract.
This is all clearly stated in Mr..
Dunn's report to the legislature. But
Mr.. Lind would have the public be-
lieve that Mr.. Dunn was to blame be-
cause the road or company had the
right to take it's time in making the
selection of lands to complete it's
grant. The first decree permitted the
road to select lands 'from time to
time as it may elect.''
After recitlng the decree In full Mr..
Dunn in his report says:
When the decree was issued. a
consultation was held by Gov.
John Lind, Attorney General
Douglas and the State auditor.
whereat the question of appealing