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

Office IN 1898, and over which Mr..
Johnson claims Mr.. Dunn had juris-
diction. In order that your committee
could be eminently fair in passing
judgment upon these cases, many of
which Mr.. Dunn had apparent diff
Guilty in settling for the State, we
found it necessary to examine into
and see in what manner the public rec
ords of the auditors Office were at the
time Mr.. Dunn assumed the duties of
State auditor. We found that the an
nual appropriations voted by the leg
islature for the use of former State
auditors in caring for these lands
were meagre, and that Auditors
Braden and Bierman were given only
81, 500 a year for the purpose of car
ing for and protecting vast areas of
lands and carrying on the land bust
ness of the State. Mr.. Dunn, in his
sworn testimony says that when he as
sumed Office in January 1895, he found
that the entire amount of the appro~
priation for the year commencing
August l, 1894, was exhausted. This
is substantiated by the records. The
legislature therefore made deficiency
appropriation late in February of
SO, 900 for the department expenses to
July 81, 1895. Thereafter the legisla-
ture appropriated $4,000 annually for
the land department, from which
amount must be paid the general ex-
penses of the State land Office, which
includes appraisement, advertising
and selling agricultural lands, survey
ing, inspecting mineral lands and
mineral output, and all expenses for
examining and appraising timber.
Therefore with this appropriation,
the Office was not able to employ more
than four cruisers who had to estimate
and appraise all the timber and detect
or prevent trespass over an area of
about 900 square miles. To have
covered this vast territory with any
degree or thoroughness would have re-
quired at least four times that number
OF cruisers: Mr.. Dunn's testimony
further shows that the records he
found in the office in January, 1895,
relating to timber land and stumpage
sales were almost valueless. The leg
islature of 1895 passed a new law
which was great improvement over
the old law. From that time the land
and stumpage clerks became active in
preparing the necessary books, rec
ords, blanks and the outfit for the use
of cruisers and timber estimators. Mr..
Dunn further said that all the records
now used in the timber stumpage
department Of the auditors Office,
were planned, adopted and put into
use by him after he took charge of the
office, in 1895, that he did not claim
them to be perfection, but thought
they were entirely adequate and salts
factory to the needs of the office. Mr..
Iverson, who was the chief deputy I'M
der Mr.. Dunn, when Mr.. Dunn as
sumed the duties of State auditor COR
rObOrated the above statements made
by Mr.. Dunn before the committee.
This statement is substantiated in the
fact that the public examiners reports
to the governor do not contain any
suggestions for any improvement or
change in those stumpage records, and
further Mr.. johnson testified before
your committee that he had never
made any such recommendations,
either to the governor or to the State
auditor in charge of the department..
According to further testimony it does
appear that under the Dunn admins
tration there was collected from the
sale of pine timber some $4,000, 900, an
amount greater than that collected
by all former auditors from 1860 to
1895. (See Auditor Bierman's last
report, pages 8, 10 and II, and Dunn s
last report, pages 30 and 81 of text).
PERMITS AND BARK MARKS.
In the report of the public examiner,
dated May 80, 1904, he calls attention
to large number of permits on file in
the auditors Office which did not con-
tain any bark mark for either the first
or second season. Your committee
being DESTROYS of ascertaining what
loss, if any, had resulted from such
! omissions, Mr.. Swan B. Molander,
who was stumpage clerk during all of
Mr.. Dunn's administration, was called
before the committee and testified that
it was his duty 10 keep the books Of
the stumpage department, make out
permits, see that permits and bark
marks were recorded in the proper
districts and to have general charge
of the correspondence of the depart-
ment, the attention of the witness, Mr..
Molander, was called to the charge
made by Public Examiner S. Z. John
son, that in a number of cases no
bark marks were recorded for the first