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

taken to protect the interests of the
State. Several scores of permits were
arbitrarily cancelled by me. Of
course, there were some permits that
were legal on their face and the bonds
required by law were on file and it
was not within my power to cancel
such permits. It must also be remem-
bered that the timber belt of Mime
sofa at that time extended over an
area of 10000 square miles, an en-
pire in itself. It would have been a
physical impossibility for a score of
cruisers, much less three, to cover the
territory in question inside of twelve
months. Our cruisers worked night
and day and Sundays and were I'M
firing in their efforts. One of the first
permits that was investigated covered
land in twenty sections in township
81: range IA, and had been issued to
man named Murray in 1892 to run
for period of five years. The per-
nit showed that the timber was esti-
mated at seven million feet and the
price was S1.75 per thousand. The
permit and bond were in conformity
with the existing law, but I came to
the conclusion that there might be
more than seven million feet. as the
estimates were far from being correct
The States cruisers were sent to the
town in question and after making a
rough estimate, which occupied three
weeks time, they reported that there
were over thirty million feet standing
on the territory covered by the per-
nit. Immediately notified Mr.. Muir
ray to come to the Office as desired to
talk with him in relation to the permit
in question. I informed him that his
permit was legal on it's face, but that
it had already run for two years and
that the State would have no redress
it the timber in question should be de-
stroyed by fire or windfall and I gave
him my ultimatum to deposit Sl3, 900
with the State treasurer and give an
additional bond of $4,000 within ten
days or I would cancel the permit and
let him litigate if he so desired. The
result of the matter was that nv terms
were complied with, and to make a
long story short, the State received
pay for thirty-seven million feet of
logs, more than five times the amount
OF the estimate. The land in question
belonged to the university and Hon.
John S. Pillsbury personally thanked
me for the admirable Manner he
said, in which had guarded the in
terests of the State and the university.
I cite this instance simply to show that
there was no neglect of duty on my
part as far as the permits issued by
my predecessors were concerned.
My efficient deputy, the present State
auditor, who was thoroughly posted
on the affairs of the Office, having
served under Mr.. Braden and also
acted as deputy State treasurer for
tour years, the stumpage clerk, Mr..
Molander, and myself worked unceas-
ingly for months to bring order out of
chaos and get the stumpage records of
the Office in decent shape. Prior to
1895 timber permits were issued in
discriminatory and the permit holder
was not required to make any ad-
vance payment. He simply held an
option on State timber, and he might
or might not cut the same. AS mat
ter OF fact, scores of permits were is
sued to men who never intended to cut
the timber. They simply bid to keep
others from getting the timber, and
Continued on Page 2.