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

items Can be identified in the State
auditors certified statement and in
the public examiners report by the
description of the land which precedes
each item.
Take the first item in the public ex-
amlner's report which says that ST.
225 for pine cut on section 1862
was not paid. State Auditor Iverson
certities that this money was paid into
the State treasury on August -, 1894,
and that the pine land investigating
committee reported the collection of
this money to the State legislature,
filing it's report with the governor on
Dec. 81, 1894.
Sections 33-5s-19 and 36-59-19. the
second item in the public examiners
report and the second and third items
in State auditors statement, is also
cited to show the falsity of the public
examiners statements. He alleges
that no effort was made to collect the
balance of the money due the State for
timber cut from this land. The State
auditor certifes that the cutting was
done before State Auditor Dunn as
sumed Office, for the most part, and
that the timber had been shipped out
of the State. State Auditor Iverson
also certifies that Mr.. Dunn placed
the collection Of the money for this
trespass in the hands of the proper
State officials, namely, the State
treasurer and the attorney general
and that they followed the timber to
Cleveland, Ohio, and that the attorney
general collected $500 which was
turned into the treasury. but was un-
able to collect any more as the tres
passer was bankrupt and his bonds
men were financially irresponsible.
1858. The public examiner among
other misleading and false statements
says Cruiser Mckenzie reported that
the section had been cut south and
west and that no payment had been
made because of this cutting. State
Auditor Iverson certifes that Cruiser
Mckenzie reported that the timber
was being cut on the lands adjoining
this section of State land and that
there had not been any cutting on
the State land.
1922. Public examiner reports
that Cruiser Mckenzie made an esti-
mate OF the timber on this land and
reported that there had been cutting
done On this land but that the rec
ords do not show who did this alleged
cutting or how much was cut. State
Auditor Iverson certifes that the exact
language of Cruiser McKenzie's re-
port was this: ''New Cutting" which
means that the timber had never been
cut into and that no cutting had been
done. The cruiser does not say that
anything was ever cut on this section,
and the public examiners statement
is an absolute falsehood.
36-53-l2. The public examiner
makes similar false statement re-
garding this section. He SAYS the
cruiser reported ''that there were new
cuttings and that he estimated the
amount OF timber still standing at
1900, OOO," and he further alleges that
the records show no attempt to collect
Tor these new cuttings and although
the cruiser reported 1900, eco feet of
timber, all the timber on this land
was sold at lump sum of $500, and
with either the densest stupidity or
malice the public examiner asks:
1.-The query is: what became of the
1000, 900 feet?" State Auditor LIVER
son certifes that Cruiser Mckenzie
never made an estimate or report that
there was 100000 feet of timber on
this land, but that there is an estimate
of 100000 feet on section 16 in the
same town. he also certifes as to
what timber was sold, cut and paid
for on this land.
The foregoing are few of the first
cases in the public examiners report
and 1t is not necessary to weary the
public with citing any others as they
are all alike throughout the entire
list. The above samples are not ex-
ceptional cases but every item of Pub
lie Examiner Johnson's report is
shown by the certified statement of
State Auditor Iverson to be lust as
false and full of gross misrepresenta-
ton, fact which can be proved by
comparison.