The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-06-09
WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK
Mr.. MoIander Writes.

Ny attention has been called to an editorial
Of .Molander's Reply" Nv excuse Excuse for this
further reply Is found in the last paragraph c.
your editorial: what The journal wants
10 Iacts, and the light Of day on the whole BUSH
The Journal evidently forgets the log
marx MIN when 1t says: There was no way
by which the logs might be scaled by the sur
veyor general, which was the proper scaling.
without the log marks The log mark MIN
Is permanent mark, and the exclusive property
! of the state of Minnesota, with which every
purchaser of state timber promises and agrees
to mark all logs cut from state land for which
he has 8, permit: This agreement is Implied
when the permit is signed, being printed in the
form of permit used, SO there is no chance for
slip or oversight this score.
/ NOW the surveyor general can inform you that
all logs bearing the mark ''MIN'' are reported by
him to the state auditor, regardless of what
other bark marks or stamp marks they may
/ bear.
| Let US assume that the permit holder has
neglected or refused to record bark mark;
/ does this leave him loophole to escape pay
ment? The mark ''MIN'' compels the surveyor
general to report the scale to the state auditor,
and any other mark must Of necessity reveal the
owner. But as all scale bills give the name of
the party hauling the logs, also the description
1 of the land from which they were cut, the num-
4 Der Of logs cut, number of feet scaled and all
| log marks, You will, no doubt, be able to per-
1 sumo.
To escape payment on a permit for state tim
Der, you must presume that there has been:
First, neglect to notify the state auditor fifteen
days before operations are commenced; second,
failure to notify the surveyor general; third,
neglect fraudulent refusal to mark logs
| MIN; fourth, the giving Of a false descrp
tion Of the land from which the timber was
| cut; fifth, that the state land examiners fail to
l examine the land during the logging season
sixth, The Journal must also presume that
many Of the most respected citizens of Mime
! apolis and other numbering centers are thieves
and deliberately intend to defraud the state.
Nov, as matter OF fact every tra e. u ntaes
land examiners each season, and unless you care
to assume that the examiners fail in their duty
4 to report to the state auditor just what is being
done-whether timber is being cut, whether 1t is
i being properly scaled, etc.-this Is In itself a
sufficient guard against any possible fraud.
that all the obligations of timber permit rest
upon the state, and that whether or not the
second party to the contract carries out his part
of the agreement, the state auditor is In duty
4 bound to enforce them. On this point will
say that, in all where the law had not
been complied with, the permit was treated as
an incomplete contract and the public examiner,
If he desired, could have found numerous no
t1ces in the copy letter book in which the pur'
chasers were notified that unless the law was
/ complied with any cutting done would be re-
garded as trespass In numerous cases permits
and bonds returned for corrections, and
much time was consumed before the corrections
were made.
The omission in filing bark marks for seasons
, in which bark mark was used for the simple
reason that timber was cut, would not, YOU
must admit be held by any court to be viola
, ton of the law. the law does not require
, nor do the courts insist upon, the performance
, of useless things, that things which in nc
way affect the contract relations of the parties
or upon the performance of things the failure
to perform which results in no damage to the
parties.
{ That Governor Van SAINT has taken the com
nonsense view Of such is shown by thu
fact that he has affixed his official signature K
:. about 100 of these permits which, according tt
the public examiner, are irregular, illegal ant
void, and which but for the signature Of thu
: governor would have expired by limitation.
} In this connection might mention that tn
J governor is by law member of the state timbe
: board, fact that the public examiner, in hi
} eagerness to find something to injure R. G. Dunn
I appears to have overlooked, for he has not We
Z charged Governor Van SAINT with having afaxe
I facts which, If they had been existent, the gov
ernor, with his forty or fifty years experienc
{ as handler of logs the rivers of Minnesota
could not have failed to notice. not mer
tioning this with the intention Of rejecting o
) Governor Van SAINT am simply stating 1t a
a fact from which T h Journa ms may dra'
81 st. Paul, Mimi, June 6.
Mr.. Molander's letter IS, first Of all, a.
open admission that the law was not fol
lowed during Mr.. Dunns administration
7 In issuing permits to cut timber fror
q state lands. His whole argument is a
effort to show that the course actual
taken by the auditors office served tn
n states interests just as we'll and that tn
official disregard Of the law did not los
{ anything for the state.
5 Let us see If this Is true Mr.. Molande
has already admitted that logs were nc
Z scaled until they were removed from tn
{ land. He has contended in his previou
: statements that in practical lunberin
q these logs must often be scaled in di1
}tferent district from the one in which the
q were cut.. But once removed from th
,S,I,{ 1~rre loo
= their identity with the land on which the
I were cut and the permit under whic
6 they were cut unless they have regis
: tered bark mark. Mr.. Molander's. cor
tentfon is that the owners private mari
sf together with the state mark MIN s
10 closely Identifies the log with the Ian
o. and the permit that the interest of tt
9u state Isl just as well protected as if tt
Is log had had a registered bark mark.
is Does it? Suppose the same person hi
O. bought half-dozen tracts from the sta
al at different prices. He may mark the
G. all "MIN'' and then mark any propo
"" ton Of the logs he sees fit with the -priva1
n mark Of the cheapest tract. Or if tt
III "MIN'' is all that Is sufficient, he me-
es mark them all as coming from the cheal
est tract, and the surveyor general W
he be powerless to secure settlement {
nd any other basis. If, however, the los
have, as the law requires, a registere
ut bark mark identifying them with certa
le. described land, not only Is the state PR
ue tected as to the price of timber from tn:
land that it cannot be claimed at
lower price, but ii is also protected
to the quantity, which may much owe
run. and generally does, the origin
cruisers estimate. The bark mark idel
,ir titying the log with the particular ira
covered by the permit Is an essential pa
nh of the transaction so far as the protectit
Of the states interests are concerned.
,y It was to prevent just this chance
juggle with private marks Of which pr
Is. vate marks Mr., Molander approves, tn
the law was so amended in 1895 as
make it a nlisdemeanor to put any 9th
ed than The registered bark mark (and Il
stamp .MIN'') on logs cut from sta
r. land Or 20 put the same mark on To-
from more than one quarter section. I'll
private mark on which Mr.. Molander
lie. willingsto rely fol protection Of the state
nd interest Is a direct violation of the statut
rs he can ascertain if he will read the Ia
20. he is supposed to have been enforcing.
Mr.. MolanGer's statement of notices
nv purchasers to comply with the law Is
defense of the Irregularities noted. r
ito gardlcss CT any correspondence tn
passed, the permits were not properly ex
W. cuted and there is no record Of any o
cutting from tracts on void permits ha
ing been arrested for trespass.
As to Mr.. Molander's t'presumptio
with regard to respected citizens of MI
neapolis and other numbering cente
out T. re Journal has no particular co
Co. Germ with regard to that matter It h
=. no knowledge as to the identity of hol