The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-10-07
Waiting for the Verdict.

Waiting for the Verdict.
State Auditor Iverson got into deep
water when he undertook to refute the
statements in the report OF the pubic
examiner as to settlement of timber per-
mits. Mr.. Iverson permitted the at
fixing of his name to a lengthy article,
taking up each case cited and explain
ing in detail. Under his official seal
this statement was given out. and was
advertised as a complete refutatlon.
Mr.. Iverson seems to have certified
to something he did not know all about,
for the official seal Of the state has
been used to validate a statement full
of mistakes and omissions. In their
anxiety to clear former Auditor Dunn
Of the charges made, Mr.. Dunn's friends
evidently rushed Mr.. Iverson off his
feet, and placed him in an uncomfort-
able position before the people OF the
state. Analysis Of his statement brings
out contradictions, errors. and omis-
sions galore, and throws into even bold
er relief the looseness Of methods IN
the auditors office, and the wholesale
NEGLECT of the material interests Of the
state school fund.
In Mr.. Iverson's reply he declared
that certain records cited In the public
examiner report could not be found
in his office. He is now referred to
book and page, and refreshed as to his
knowledge Of the records Of his own
office-certainly an annoying experience
for a public officer. -
The statement signed by Mr.. Iverson
was evidently not written by him, but
by former employees Of the office ia
miliar with the records, and now work
ing to clear Mr.. Dunn.
The salient facts in the original re-
port Of the public examiner still stanc
without successful contradiction. The
permits referred to were still outstand
ing, open and not outlawed when Mr.
Dunn came into office. Newspaper fle'
of that year give interviews with Mr.
Dunn, in which he declared that hun
} dreds of these permits were fraudulent
and would be checked up and Cancelled
They were checked up, within the neces
sary time, and reports made by hi
! cruisers showing the disappearance 0
! timber. The permits were still in fore
or not outlawed, and the holders o
3 these permits were plainly liable to tn
! state for all the timber, yet in tn
scores of cases cited there is no ev
dence of any collection for these GU
tings. Timber from state school land
4 sold at bona fide sale, had been Gu
9 in great quantities. The permit holder
( had bought the timber and taken tn
risk, but the state lost the money. M
B Dunn, after all his promises, made r
q effort to collect for these vast losses.
8 Information given by the cruiser
q seems to have been disregarded in maj
y ing settlements. Ordinary business pr
u cautions were neglected in tracing I'll
IS timber taken. Where the timber hs
q disappeared, the cuttings should hay
p been scaled from the stump, al
charged to the purchaser, but this W
. not done. Without regard to old pc
-. mits, new sales were made for the I
naming timber at less money, and t.
he difference was not charged to the hold
res of the first permit, as required by law
If The resulting waste and loss to t
OIL school fund it is impossible, to estima1
led The mass of facts set before the pub
TVS in these reports is, indeed, too great
out be graspcd and appreciated, but the 81
yb cifc cases are clear, and the only conc
in sion is that the state interests have 81
fered from grievous laxity Of the
net sponsible officials, disregard Of the pl
so tecting provisions Of law, and gene1
on heedlessness as to results. The wht
to showing is deplorable, and if it was \
ow made in the heat of a political campai
ngs it would result in unanimous public &C
the demnation. No dispassionate reader
in the evidence can fail to arrive at t
eo- conclusion that the state has suffer
great loss with practically no eff
the made to prevent it.
18th ----- - =.