The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1905-04-05
MINORITY REJECTS
BOWLING REPORT
Public Accounts Committee
Not Unanimous in State
Auditor Investigation

| The long expected report of the
house committee on public accounts
and expenditures made its appearance
| yesterday. Ii relates to the investiga-
| ton, which has been in progress for
| the. past six weeks, of the much moot
ed question whether the reports OF
former Public Examiner, s. T. Johnson
on the administration of the office OF
state auditor under r. c. Dunn and
s. G.. Iverson are founded on fact or
were inspired by political malice. The
committee finds that the auditors were
not really guilty of the things that the
public examiner charged them with
doing.
The report of the committee was re-
ceived, by the house just before the
noon. adjournment yesterday. 1t was
signed by Chairman Bowling. Bouck.
Mork, Hayes. Vollmer, Hille. Thayer,
Saari. Wyman and O'Laughlin. Three
members refused to sign the report.
They are Jefferson, earle and Fraser
Two other members were absent when
the report was submitted by the sub
committee to the full committee No
disposition was made of the report and
IL will lie over until printed in the
journal for the information of the
members of the house
s.s-,.l Minority Report Coming
The minority met last night and
agreed to draft minority report. It
Will be presented in the house today
1t Will be brief. simply stating that ii
was unable to reach the conclusion ar
rived at by the majority. The three
men who will sign the minority report
are all Republicans. The only Demo-
cratic member of the committee, NJ. ].
OIaughlm of Wabasha, signed the
majority report
indications are that the house will
accept the report of the majority: Re
publican leaders are said TO be commit
ted to this policy. $. T. johnson, whom
the report, II was expected, would Sc
XeTely criticiSe, is not held responsible
Tor the charges that were made against
Dunn and Iverson. Instead the burden
or criticism is shifted to the deputies
VINO actually conducted the examina-
ton. IL is pointed out that they were
not experts in numbering operations
and mistakes were bound TO occur in
their examination.
The majority report deals lightly
with the mineral lease charges made
against former State Auditor Dunn. 1t
says that there IS no evidence to show
that former employees of the state au-
ditors office are interested in the Ma
bel Evans lease, though ii admits that
Attorney General E T. Young has be-
gun an action to cancel this lease be-
cause OF alleged collision between
is found to have acted within the legal
requirements in issuing the lease to
Mabel Evans. The conclusions of the
committee are found in the closing par
agraphs of the report, which. in its en-
tlrely cover eighteen pages of typewrit-
ten matter. This says in part:
Committees Conclusions
From the evidence substa initial and coi-
latensls. before your COMMITTEES in its in
Ia 20
IN our opinion. in a single instance that
the state by any act OF omission on the
part or auditors Dunn or Iverson has
lost single dollar. and this statement Is
corroborated by the evidence of the for
mer pubic examiner, Mr.. s. T. Johnson
In MS testimony before your committee:
nor can we in justice to the people OF
Minnesota proclaim that there has been
under Mr. Dunn or Mr.. Iverson any sub
stantlaI evidence OF incompetency, neglect
or dereliction of duty.
we do believe and unhesitatingly assert
tnat by those acts of these executive Of
ncers: which might be justly named or
has materially benefited. 1t is not the
province or duty of your committee, as we
see II, TO affirmatively assert that when
a purchase of timber was made in an
parently good faith and because of the
time limit OF the permit being exhausted
that the state should have enforced the
legal penalty of double or treble damages.
That question is legal and not within the
province OF this committee. II Is the
opinion of your committee that the rigid
and drastic penalties of law were not ex-
acted or enforced In all cases. but there is
no evidence to show that the states in
thereby
The evidence given before YOUR COM
mittee by former Public Examiner s.
i. johnson was to the effect that he un-
uertook the examination of the state audi
tors office under what he construed to be
the instruction of the legislature of 1903
and in the belief that it was his duty to
do so under the general authority of his
department. To examine such large and
complicated department as that OF the
state auditor. the work and ramifications
of which include all departments OF state
government. was stupenduous under
taking, for IL was attempted to reach the
almost countless transactions relating to
lands and timber covering a period OF
twenty years or more. This Is borne out
by communica ton made TO your COM
mittee by the present public examiner. in
which he states that about SIS days were
devoted to the work of examining the
auditors office, equal to the employment
of two men for almost a whole year. Ii
Is evident to your committee that to
thoroughly and inteligently conduct an
examination OF the state auditors office,
mere experiences in accounting is not suf
hcient. 1t is necessary that the exami
ners should have practical knowledge of
the intricate details of the logging and
numbering business, and a comprehensive
understanding of the law and its bearings
on the technical features Of the business.
II is inevitable that in such an examina
tion mistakes and misunderstanding
must attend the work of the best inten-
toned person who possesses only limit
ed experienced along special lines of bust
ness involved.
Your committee has not found that the
examination of the state auditors Office
was conducted by persons possessing
knowledge of the numbering and land bust
ness. nor has ii been shown that the ex-
aminer asked or sought for any eXplana-
ton or information from the state auditor
or the employees OF that Office which might
have made clear some OF the things other
wise inexplicable to an inexperienced per-
son, and which might have prevented the
making OF some mistakes or misunder-
standings