The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-04-05
Dunn to Buchanan.

Dunn to Buchanan.
Hon. c. B. Buchanan, Little Falls MINI.
Dear Sir: Several weeks have elapsed
since arrangements for payments Of the
claim Of the state against you for trespass. ;
The time has now arrived when I must in |
sist upon a settlement with you without |
further delay or I shall be obliged to |
place the whole matter in the hands Of
the attorney general for collection. Now,
Mr.. Buchanan, I have waited patiently,
and you know the fix I am in. There is
liable to be an examination of our books
any day by the public examiner, and it
will be very embarrassing for me to ex-
| plain why this matter Of yours vas al
| lowed to- drag along for years. 7 must
| hear from you at once or. If not, shall
! be obliged to turn the matter over to the
attorney general and have him commence
action for the recovery Of the amount due
! State Auditor.
No payment was made until May s,
1902, when $4,000 was RENTED. Then
on June 81, 1902, Mr.. Dunn wrote again
| to Buchanan, as follows:: ~. @@.s =
Hon. c. 3. Buchanan, Little Falls MINI.
Dear Buchanan: I was somewhat put
out at your hardness in making good your
promise, but I will do just as agreed to
! do, VIZ, will recommend to the timber
board that two thousand t$2,000) dollars
be accepted as; settlement in full for the
| claim Of the state against you. But
want you to come down right away and I
will go with you before the governor and
treasurer and will do my best to help you
straighten it out, but you must come
down yourself and come right away. Very
truly, R. c. Dunn,
:, State Auditor.
By the evidence Of this letter, signed
by Mr.. Dunn himself, the committee
could see that he had settled Gin full"
: deavored to collect the balance, and
that it is this trifing amount Of 1881
that the attorney general is now suing
for. Mr.. Bowling and his partizans on
, the committee either couldn't or
{ wouldn' It see the point.
Then under the head of mineral leases
E the committee finds that 'the legal
h1Ys leases 5ssn ay paid H TO tS a
n they weren't ~ :~*
t The charge was that the state EN-:
J., ployees were specializing in leases and
!. not; giving the outside public a fair
show. That charge is evident from
n the records. But the committee further
5 finds that there has been no loss to the
directly with the attorney general who
e is now suing to set aside the Mabel
A Evans lease, claiming that there was
more than one. application received the
= same day, and that the lease should
have been put up at auction, bringing a
large sum into the state treasury in
stead of the $25 fee. The committee is
a little previous here.
/ Again the committee finds: "The
, records do not show that any person
who now is, or at any time. was en-
ployed in the state auditor g office owns
Or possesses any leases issued to one
Mabel Evans 1850
How about lease No 1927, 1928
< Mabel Evans, Emma Arden and others
9 Fifty-year contracts were issued or
d these tracts Feb. IS, 1908, and in these
q contracts the names Of Mabel Evans
y and Emma Arden disappear, and in thei
y places appear George A. Finn and I. G
4 Patterson, who had until the first o.
q that, year been land clerk and assistan
y land clerk. How about Leases No. ;l3.
9, bel Evans and Emma Arden? Fifty
( year contracts on these pieces wer'
!e taken out Feb. 10, 1908, and they wer'
X made out to George A. Finn and I. G
IL Patterson.
+ Why didn It the committee report tn
:, facts about these transactions9
W W In a general way, the committee ex
81 observe the law, because it was GO i'm
10 practical, - or because it was impossible
10 to secure what the law requires, and
~ made the best settlement possible. I
the law was impractical, then it wa
ri the business of the auditor to point GU
-, - that fact to the legislature, and have
~. amended, but during eight years no r.
~ ~ quest was made for a change in tn
ia law, and it was left in it's "impract
20 cal'' form. AS to the settlements, tn
h law gives the auditor none Of the &C di'
i cretionaryo power which the commit
q tee speaks about, except that he ma
a settle for double the stumpage value
at trespass cases. The discretion was e.
re- ercised in violation of the law, and a
unbiased committee would have said s.
or On the contrary, this committee wan
he the legislature to indorse official failul
in to comply with and execute the Law
is What kind of precedent would that /
he for the legislature Of Minnesota to e
90 tablish?
~ In it's detailed discussion Of case
ret the committee expresses satisfactic
gs with trespass settlements where the a
vs. praised value Of the timber was secure
BY this attitude this committee Of la,