The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1904-09-22

outset Mr.. q. r. Foley of Aitkin, who
had furnished the supplies to the tres
passers, and was interested only to
the amount of the merchandise he had
furnished to the trespassers, and was
IN no way connected with the trespass,
offered me 81, 500 in settlement. I re-
fused his offer and, as I have said,
proceeded to comply with the strict
terms OF the law. The best bid I could
receive tor the timber was $500.
which was offered by A. Y. Merrill of
Minneapolis, and was obliged to sell
for that sum. The State would have
oeen S7OO ahead had I accepted Mr..
f'oley's offer, besides the expenses
which amounted to about $500 more.
could cite several instances of this
kind.
When I left the uditor's Office there
were only two unsettled cases of tres
pass. One of my last official acts
was to write the attorney general a.
caustlc letter urging him to commence
action at once against one of the par
ties, a Minneapolis lumberman. Rut
l find that no action was commenced
until about two months ago and Mr..
johnson was given the credit for hav-
ing the suit instituted.
In this connection T refer to the
State OF Minnesota VS.. Shevlin g. Car
penter, rs MINI. 99-1O9 inclusive.
where Chief Justice Start says: "Ac-
cordingly: this court has adopted and
repeatedly applied the following rule
in actions of trespass in trover:
where the defendant is a willful tres
passer, the measure of damages is the
full value of the property at the time
and place OF demand, but if he is only
an unintentional Or mistaken trespas-
ser-that is where he honestly and rea-
sonably believed that he had the LEGAL
right to take the property-then the
measure OF damages is the value of
the property at the time and place.
and in the condition it was taken. -,
During the eight years I served as
auditor, the first four years the price
OF stumpage was very low. Every
one knows that there was depression
In the lumber business in the wears
1896, 1897 and 1898. In the eight
years I held six general sales of tim
Der, held no sales in 1896 and 1899,
and the amount derived from those six
sales, including the outstanding per-
mlts, was 81, PSI, 900, while in all the
previous history of the State ten times
more timber was sold or disappeared
from view and only Sl,S4O,992 was
realized. think the figures quoted
amply demonstrate and prove to the
satisfaction of all fair-minded men
that the timber interests of the State
were not neglected during my admin
lstratlon. 1 have no hesitation in
saying that had the States timber
been handled as we'll prior to nv ad-
mlnlstration as during my admins
tratlon, the permanent school and the
permanent university funds would be
at least five million dollars larger
than they now are.
The State. legislature of 1898 ap-
pointed pine land investigating com
mittee for the special purpose of in
vestigating all State timber stumpage
transactions which had taken place
prior to 1895 and provided it with a
fund for the purpose of employing
cruisers and defraying expenses. It
was supposed that this committee COW
cred the field thoroughly, which it
undoubtedly did. Any reflections
which the public examiner may cast
upon any timber transaction occur
ring prior to 1895 falls with more
force upon this pine land investiga-
ting committee than upon R. c. Dunn.
The names of the members of the
above committee are as follows: Hon.
lgnatius Donnelly, Hon. S. W. Leav-
EFT, Hon. A. Y. Eaton, Hon. c. F.
Staples, Hon. J. F. jacobson and
Hon. M. j. McGrath.
The law of 1895 (Chapter 1853, G. l..
lo95) specially provided that all tim
Der estimates made prior to the pas
sage OF the bill were null and void.
This made it impossible for me to paw
much attention to old matters as the
appropriation made for the purpose
by the legislature only admitted of
the State auditor employing three
cruisers in the field and they were
necessarily kept busy looking after
cuttings which were made under per-
mits then in force. But where the
State auditor learned of old cases
where cuttings had not been paid for,
the facts were noted and wherever
evidence could be secured collections
were made.
AS matter of fact, there are very
few cases to which the public examiner