The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-11-07

~FFSeSN pSSAAS
tunely7 81 Il
Now as to Mr.. Rockwood's second
point, wherein he says
In my Judgment It Is equally certain
that the law does not forbid any clerk
in the auditors office from taking out
leases. Mere clerks are not.s.public Off
GERS" they are employees. -
On this point Mr.. lockwood disagrees
with the attorney general Of Minnesota,
who says that the land clerk and assist
ant land clerk, being provided for by
statute, are "public officers The at
torney general g Judgment on this point
is good law until it is overturned by
the courts.
Mr.. lockwood may have been mis-
led by his failure to find the law pro-
viding for the clerk Of the state land
office. The statute creates that posi-
ton, and most Enthusiastically declares
the official a "public officer" 1t is
found in Chapter 7, Section $50, General
Statutes Of 1894, which is headed "Sal-5
aries of State Officers.'' Starting with
the governor, secretary Of state, and
state auditor, the list comes down to
paragraph thirteen, which provides as
follows:
That the salary Of the clerk of the state
land office for the year 1877, and there
after, be fixed at $1,000 per annum.
II Under the statutes Mr.. George A.
Finn was just as much state officer
as Governor Van SAINT or Mr.. Dunn,
when the leases were issued. His as
sistant, L. G. Patterson, is provided for
in Sec. 1900, General Statutes of 1894,
which was not codifed in the same chap
ter as the provision for the state land
clerk when the laws were compiled.
However, under the ruling Of Attorney
General Donahower, the two land clerks
are both "public officers,' and Sec.
6666 of the General Statutes of 1894
reads:
A public officer who is authorized to
sell or lease any property or to make
any contract, in his official capacity, or
to take any part, in such. sale or lease,
or contract, and voluntarily becomes in
terested, individually, in such sale, lease
or contract, directly or indirectly, Is
guilty of misdemeanor.
That statute applies directly to the
mineral lease proposition. The land
clerks receive applications and make out
leases as part of their regular duties
The auditor signs them, and is RESPONSE
BILE, but the clerks certainly "take
part' in the transaction. Mr.. Finn
and Mr.. Patterson 'took part' with {
vengeance.
So much for the legal side of the prop
osition. IT h Q j our submits thai
: violation of the law is clearly proved
minded man contend that it was prope:
to allow these clerks, with their inside
? information as to state lands patented
and subject to lease, the right to taxi
, leases and traffic in them9 Beyond an,
question it was abuse of official posi-
ton for private ends. If Mr.. Rock
l wood approves of such conduct, that i
his privilege. = s
8 In conclusion: Mr.4zRockwood volun
7 tcers the remark that in the othe
s charges against Mr.. Dunn he had faile,
D to see any charge, Hwhich, when an
: alyzed, in view Of. the law, is any NOR
s serious or real than the charge that b
Y permitted his clerks to engage in a sys
3 tenn Of traffic III mineral leases contrar
s to law. The traffic, if it existed, wa
J. not contrary to law.''
0 Does Mr.. lockwood doubt that it di
t exist, and after reading the authoritie
cited, does he doubt that it was contrar
q o+law9 If he looked at the other mat
ters in the record Of Mr.: Dunn with tn
same eyes that he viewed the minera
lease proposition, it is not surprisin
that he found nothing in them.
The other matters are not worse tina
+ the mineral lease transactions, perhaps
3 tho on larger scale. There is limj
/ beyond which official favoritism an
J. recklessness cannot go without more 81
q rious consequences than have followe
IS the course of the former auditor.
h Put your estimate down on paper, the