The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-10-01
lM THE FIELD OF POLITICS

lie examiner. In nearly every instance
the public examiner appears to have
made a strong case in support of his
earlier contentious
The reply is simply the first install
ment of what the examiner says will
be complete REPUTATION of the posi-
ton taken by State Auditor Iverson in
defense of his late CHIEF the former
state auditor.
Prefacing his replies 70 the various
items disputed by the present state
auditor, Mr.. Johnson says in his state
ment given out yesterday:
Johnson,s introduction
A careful analysis of the report made
by the public examiner and the state
auditors reply will show that in many
instances Auditor Iverson simply repeats
what was stated by the public examiner,
and in many other cases his comments
are misleading in the extreme.
Schedule No. of the public examiners
report contains many sections upon which
permits were issued to cut timber, which
remain open on the Stumpage record in
the state auditors office.
Auditor IYerson in his sworn state
ment endeavors to explain number of
them away by stating that the section
had been burnt clean at time of Hinck-
ley fire."
L lie pubic department HAS
found correspondence concerning many of
these sections referred to as having been
burnt at the time of the Hinckley fire,
which clearly demonstrates the fact that
millions Of feet of timber had been cut
on these particular sections and the
stumpage record does not contain any
evidence of cutting or payments on ac-
count of the permits, referred to.
The public examiner reasserts that all
of the cases embraced in his last report
on timber transactions come within the
jurisdiction of former State Auditor and
Land Commissioner Dunn.
Examiner cites Examples
12-56-2S, Permit 622, issued to C. H.
Davis, secured permit in 1891; esti-,
In June, 1897, Cruiser Dedon reported
that the section had been cut clean in
1S91-92, and that S75,500 feet had been
the land was burned over hard in 1893
and no pine left. Mr.. Johnson says the
report of Cruiser Dedon showed that this
timber was cut clean in 1912 and that
the bark mark, number of feet and the
man who did the cutting are the same
as specified in permit 62S, which remains
open on the stumpage record, and with
nothing apparently having been paid for
the cutting of the 975,500 feet. The statute
of the limitation, Mr.. Johnson contends,
cannot be pleaded to have run in this
case.
36-47-17 Permit No. 405 issued to
William Sauntry, in 1890. Mr.. Johnsons
original report shows that cut of 2,755,
600 feet was paid for at the rate of $1.75,
when the cruisers estimate was for $3.50
per thousand. Auditor Iverson answered
that the fact that it was reported to be
worth So. 80 did not render the permit in
valid, or give sufficient cause for the
it was sold for less than it was worth.
Examiner Johnson recites the history of
the case and asks if it was fair to let
this permit run along indefinitely for
han 81
$1.75, timber increasing in value from
year to year and in the face of the re-
port that the timber was worth So. so per
thousand. Mr.. Johnson holds that the
permit should have been cancelled at the
end of its first term and resold at a rea-
sonable price.
16-441S Permit No. 4O5, issued to Will
liam Sauntry in 1890. Examiner Johnson
said in his. original report that this per-
nit was allowed to lapse and was cam
celed, and in 1895 a new permit was is
sued to the Atwood Lumber company at
$S.60 per thousand. He asked why the
first contract was not enforced and the
difference saved to the state. Auditor
!verson said that the permit was sold
MIR. Dunn became state auditor, and that
Mr.. Dunn proceeded to sell on a new es-
innate of 100000 feet at 50 per thousand
Auditor Iverson claimed that the state
had realized nearly $4,000 more than
If 1t had been sold under the first eSti-
mate. Mr.. Johnson replies that this Eek
PLANTATION is absolutely ridiculous" He
contends that the original price was 81
instead of 81, as stated by Auditor Iverson,
and calls attention TO the fact that Saun-
try was one of the Sureties on the At
wood bond. Had the pine been cut under
the first permit the state would have
realized over $22, 900, while under the plan
followed. the state lost 1880. Part of
the timber was shown to have been cut
after the permit had expired and Mr..
Johnson claims that the auditor should
have enforced the penalty.
No Contradictions Noted
33-5S-1S and S6-59-19. Permit 114S, is
sued to R. E. White In 1894. Examiner
Johnson claims that Auditor. VERSIONS
the public examiners report; that there
remains uncollected $6,3S7. 40 on these
sections, and that it could have been col
lected from the bondsmen of the permit
36-49-2S Permit AS, issued to ]. J.
Mcdonald in 1890 Examiner Johnson
says in his answer that Auditor Iverson
has acknowledged that his sworn state
this case, used as a defense for Mr.. Dunn,
is erroneous. and that the original john
son statement Is absolutely correct. Mr..
johnson declares that no steps have been
taken to account for $4,000 feet of pine
taken from this land
16-59-17. Permit 1105, issued to w. P.
Bailey in 1904. This was given as an il
lustration OF the. alleged custom of selling
pine in danger from fire. Auditor 1verSon
answered that the state had lost nothing
by the deal. Mr.. Johnson replies that he
did not claim that 1t did, and that the
case was cited to show the vast differ
ence in the estimates given by the ap-
praiSerS. ssss
S6-57-22 Permit 452. issued to Hall &
Dusey in 1890 Examiner Johnson claim
ed that the cruisers report would show
6. 200, 600 feet, with only 5000, 600 feet paid
for, and no effort to locate the liability.
Auditor VERSIONS defense was that there
was more timber cut than was reported.
to base an action. Mr. Johnson replies to
this by saying that Cruiser Dedon gives
the bark mark for this timber cut; that
bark marks which could be used in iden-
tifyinG the owner of the mark He says
the. statue of frauds was then In force
and the duty of the state auditor was to
Investigate the difference of 1000, 600 feet