The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-09-27
I'm THE FIELD OF p 0:L1TIGS

JOHNSON REPLIES TO
DUNN'S CRITICISMS
Examiner Was Backed by At.
torney Generals Opinion in
Making Investigation
S. T. Johnson, state public examiner,
yesterday issued a statement in which
he replies to the criticisms Of r..
Dunn, George A. Finn and the Repub-.
i1can organization that the investiga-.
ton of the state auditors office and the
SUBSEQUENT reports rejecting on r. C.
Dunn's administration of the Office
We're inspired by anything other than
an exalted sense ofspublic duty.
Mr.. Johnson fortifies his statements
with copy of an opinion by Franklin
II. Grtggs, special counsel for the state,
employed by: former Attorney General
w. B.aDouglas, in which Johnson's au--
therity for making the investigations
Is given in opinions given as long ago
as May, 1903,i in which then Assistant
Attorney General w. j. Donahower
said that the investigation proposed
was authorized by the laws of 1894.
Mr.. (TriQpC oil he OF of
1902, and the requirements of the
house of representatives of the legisla-
ture of 1903, as further authority for
the examiners diligence in delving into
the records of the state auditors office.
Mr.. Griggs goes farther in his opin-
ion than had been formerly suggested,
for, after discussing alleged diserep1
ancies in the school land accounts and
in the tax statements, he refers to
wide differences in the accounts of
the state treasurer and the state au-
ditor, and declares that the public ex-
amlner should thoroughly investigate
and overhaul each separate account in
the two Offices and then mot only to
recommend, but to insist upon some
safe and accurate system which must
be followed in the future"
In replying to his critics, the public
examiner says:
johnson Talks Back
The authority and motive of this de-
partment has always been questioned by
banks, public officials and gross earn
ing corporations, when the examinations
developed serious careleSsneSS and vio-
lations of law; and never is questioned
when the conditions found do not call for
criticism.
s The bigger the Ethiopian in the wood
pile the louder the cry of mo jurisdic
it peculiar to this administration or case.
As to the justification for it in this case
I prefer to allow the law, the legislature,
the records themselves YES do the e taking ing
Noise and personal abuse will not change
any of these things. am combining my
self to the records which furnish a good
enough answer for all official purposes.
This whole matter is summed up in
the following opinion Of Special Assist
ant ATTORNEY General Franklin II. Griggs,
who was employed by the attorney gen
eral, W. B. Douglas, as special counsel
for this department
1t is not a question of jurisdiction, but
one of honest faithful, intelligent work
on the records, in order that the public
may, in spite of all the noise and dust
get true knowledge of how it's business
has been conducted. This, 1T is the duty
of this department to show. and so far
as order can be brought out of chaos so
far this duty has and will be performed
Statements made by interested persons,
should be carefully inspected and weighed
before they are taken at par.
Regrettable as are the developments, it
is purely an official duty, having to do
with legal and business matter in which
politics and personalities have no place.
MIR. erIaas Opinion
Attached is a copy of Attorney Frank
lin H. Griggs' legal opinion, given to the
public examiner
In reply to your request for advice as
books and records of the office of the
state auditor and land commissioner
which may be undertaken by you in your
official capacity, beg to call your atten-
ton again to the opinions rendered you
by Mr.. w. j. Donahower, as assistant
attorney general under the dates of May
20, 1909 and May 26, 1903, and to your
of May 20, 1908, to Mr.. w. B. Douglas,
the then attorney general, in which you
stated that MIR. Donahower's opinions
seemed ito be very conclusive and salts
1t would seem that you ought not to
need any further advice from the office
of the attorney general, for whom am
matters arising in your department. I'M
der my special charge. This is partic-
ularly true as to the requirements made
Statutes of 1884, to which Mr.. Dona-
hower's opinions had particular reference.
But 1T seems to me that you ought to
1eel at least as mucn pound by the pro-
visions of the act of 1902, and the re-
quirements made of you by the house of
representatives in the legislative session
of 1908, as by the statutory provisions to
which you referred in your requests for
advice as made of the attorney general S
|. department itself.
Your attention is, therefore, called to
eral Laws of 1902, which is in terms
amendatory of the general statutory pro-
visions found in the 1894 codifcation
chapter SO Of the General Laws for 1878,
and to the provisions of the report Of
the committee of public accounts and eX-
penditures as made to the house of rep
5resentatives, under date Of April 16, 1903,
body. BY the provisions of the act of
1902 assuming that to be valid 1egisla-
tive enactment, you were provided with
additional and extra ordinary means for
performing the duties imposed upon you
by the act of 1878 as defined by Mr..
Donahower, Ito make an examination of
the books, papers, accounts, bills, youch-
ers and other documents or property of
the said state auditors Office for the pur-
pose = of ordering and enforcing a
correct, and as far as practicable, uniform
system of bookkeeping by the state treas
urer and auditor SO as to afford suitable
check upon their mutual action and as
sure a thorough supervision and safety of
state funds and of exposing the faults or
erroneous systems of accounting 1t was
thus the very natural course for the house
of representatives to follow for it to
adopt the report of its committee as re-
ferred to above in which it was recon-
gate thoroughly into the stumpage and
Individual stumpage and mineral land ac-
counts due the state, as well as the out
standing railroad, express, telephone and