The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1905-04-13

ErON, MILE Laos COUNTY,
came more remote from market and
had to be hauled long distances by
rail, the boundaries of the several
survey or-general districts were of
necessity somewhat confused. For
timber situate in the Duluth district
the bark mark should be recorded with
the surveyor general at Duluth when
the timber was sold by the State, but
the logs were often sold by the logger
to jobbers and hauled by rail to Min
neapolis. It was therefore important
to have the bark mark and all docu-
ments recorded in the district wherein
is situated the destination of the logs.
If recorded in both districts, it would
cause much confusion, and if recorded
only in the Duluth district, when, for
example, the logs were delivered in
Minneapolis, no record of bark marks,
liens for labor or any other informa-
ton would be found in the surveyor
generals Office at Minneapolis, and
but for the States mark, "MIN, y
which is recorded in all districts and
holds the logs for the State in all
cases, there would be nothing to pre-
vent the logs being seized by a boom
company when they were dumped into
the Mississippi river. Owing to the
necessity for having the marks, per-
mits, liens, etc., of record in the dis
trict of destination, the letter of the
law was not strictly adhered to.
Mr.. Molander testified further, I'M
der oath, that no logs were cut under
State permits before bark mark and
the State mark "MIN'' lad been re-
corded and the buyer Of logs look for
the records only in the district in
which the boom is located and the logs
sorted. The contractural relations
existing between the State and the
permit holder were in no way affected
by the recording of instruments. The
records were to protect the public and
interested third parties.
Mr.. S. 7. johnson stated at the con-
clusion of Mr.. Molander's testimony
regarding bark marks that he had not
reported that the State lost anything
by the practice of recording them as
stated by Mr.. Molander. He had con-
strued it to be violation of the 1895
law. In reply to a question of Mr..
Wyman as to whether he could point
to a single case where the State lost
mooney by reason Of failure to record
log marks in strict compliance with
the law, Mr.. S. T. johnson said he
could not do SO. Your committee is
of the opinion til at a regard to the
recording of bark marks, ETC.. exist
ing conditions made it impracticable
to comply with the strict letter of the
law in some cases, but that such non
compliance was technical in character
and in our opinion without any result
ing loss to the State.
TIMBER TRESPASS.
Your committee finds from the rec
ords and evidence submitted. that in
regard to trespass of pine on State
lands, where the timber was actually
seized and con6scated and sold at
public sale, less amount had been
realized thar where settlements were
made by the State auditor. Among
the many instances cited is the follow
ing: In Aitkin county there were
three separate cases involving he fol-
lowing parties. viz: Pat Hopkins,
Neustrom Brothers and Sutherland.
MIR. Dunn employed W. A. Flemming,
an attorney at Brainerd, who insti-
tuted criminal proceedings against the
parties and seized the illegally cut
timber. The timber so seized was
sold after due advertisement in the
press and 81 1876 was realized for the
State. An offer had previously been
made of S2,5 500 for this trespass by Mr..
Merrill of Minneapolis. Mr.. Dunn
refused this settlement and seized the
timber, resulting in loss to the State
of 1865, beside the expenses incurred.
The criminal prosecutions failed for
want of evidence and the parties ac-
cused of stealing the timber brought
suit against State Cruiser w. S.
Dedon, and Mr.. Dunn, the State audi
tor, for damages sustained by them.
Again, the public examiners re-
port conveys the impression that in
nearly all cases the settlements for
trespass upon State lands was made
with the guilty parties who actually
committed the crime: but the trespass
record actually shows that in very few
instances are settlements made with
such parties, but in nearly every case
with the lumber company or large
buyer who had purchased the timber
from numerous small loggers and