The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1906-11-01

Der company Two Of my cruisers, Nc
Kenzie and Mcclellan, discovered this
trespass in December, 1902, and reported
amount cut at $4,000 feet. for which
Auditor lverson collected Sc per thousand
in January, 1908. Three cruisers spent
| three days on this section last summer
and reported that in their judgment 1885,
600 was a fair scale. Sec. SO, T. 144,
r. 3d. was sold at cash sale in 1901 on
an estimate of 10000 feet for $6O5. The
governors witness reported that there
| were 100000 feet cut. The rescale showed
$4,000 feet, a difference of only 1000 feet,
less than 31a per cent.
Four other sections were rescaled and
some discrepancies were discovered, but
one of the governors appointees, the
pa tr1Ot1c and reliable witness" was so
n1anifestly unfair in order to make good
his assertions to the governor that the
other cruisers refused to work with him.
ana, on Gov. Johnsons own motion the
timber board discharged him. On five
sections, on the showing of the governors
cruisers, discrepancy of less than $4,000
feet, and the scale partly guesswork! So
much for the governors discrepancies of
millions on less than half a dozen Sec
tons" TO say the least, the governor is
guilty of rank demagogism. g..
TrespaSY Cases PenIinx.
Gov. Johnson asserts that the cases
now pending for settlement will bring
$5oO,OOO into the state treasury The
only wonder is that he did not say s., OOU,-
ing, which have been periodically and
s4yy s paraded IN the press by
public: I can best explain by Illustrating
one OF these large cases. and 1 will Sc
lect the $4,000 case referred to by the
governor in his Red Wing speech.
Suit has been brought against the Shcv-
tt!n-Carpenter company to collect for
trespass on section Ii. township 80, range
Il. Sol, 81 A. Now, probably there is NOT
the ,Shevlin-Carpenter company deliber-
ately robbed that school section during
ny ADMINISTRATION as state auditor. and
covered the trespass. Let me state the
facts: At public sale held in the state
capltol on NOV. II, 1900 at which several
n n. t1 people were present, the timber
on OK, the section in question was offered for
sac and sold to John Il. Irwin for the
saeVl1n- Carpenter company at 81 per M,
aa org price ICE; at that time: l'wentytiye per
was paid down at the time of sale, and a
permit to cut and remove the timber was
GUY issued to the shevlin Carpenter
years and may be legally extended an
other. year by the timber board. This
permit per NV was rex extended on May 7, 1902 for
the sseaon ahe 1o 6per I was not cut until
no legal authority to extend the plrmit
beyond one year. But the timber b5ard.
11 cons R1ne. Of 1H Coy Van SAINT State Treas
view OF the fact that the Shevlin-C Car
penter company had paid one-fourtn Of
In, Inc purchase price at the time of sale,
cutting Of the timber by the said COM
pany. provided the company would paw 8
per cent on the deferred payments. This
the hrm agreed to do and did do
Equities on Their Side.
Ihe timber was cut by the Shevlin-
CARPENTER company and was paid for at
the rate of 81 per NJ and interest at the
ments. II! all more than $1,000 There is
no question az to the amount Of timber
aIa1,, no +q question as to price The state
claims that the Shevli n-Carpenter conn-,
was cut after the life o; the permit had
expired, and the attorney general has
Instituted tnstIn suit against the firm for the
dition to the GOO already paid. In
other words, If the state maintains its
Ssqbn atIt that timber will have cost rte
than could have been collected had the
firm stolen the timber outright without
any excuse or justification whatever I'm
violated the letter OF the law. With the
acQulescence of the timber board, but the
equities al the case are all on their side
Cites Another Case.
Let me cite anothe. case of which T
nave personal knowledge. The Backus-
Brooks company is sued for $122,oO. This
hrm had purchased the timber on several
and q per hs sale of of Of 1922 besy
(about $4,000 had been paid at the time
OF sale. A projected railroad had not
neen built and the firm could not cut and
Of my administrati ion Mr.. Brooks Of the
III nrnl IN question called on NE and wanted
to know if his firm would be permitted to
CUT the ClmOer, rnfnrrnI
successor. Mr.: Iverso,.. ~ ~ '''
A meeting of the timber board was held
Van SAINT. Treasurer Block and Mr..
IVerson were present The facts in tie
G S,e, We're laid before the board by Mr..
ship on his firm to lose the money al
ready paid (about $4,000, but he ala not '1
w 1T to go go ahead and make preparations
ffa aet vt to the board, or words 70 that e.
tect. The board unanimously agreed that
the Backus-Brooks company could cut
a ana remove the timber believe there
9 81 per cent interest on deferred payments.
Inc firm cut. the timber. paid The nrice
specified specific. in the permits, also per cent
the State e IS suina faS Ten and
yalV Heo of the, timber in addition to The the
S41;o ~ already a paid by the firm. ''''
libsrately stolen the timber in question.
and the state could have proved its case
80 80 ao tnae could be collected would he
$l22,0 goo. the treble value of the timher
AS 1t is, if the contention of the state
prevails although the firm acted seen,s
OF the timber. board. it viii be ml,icted
for S122, 900 plus the actual pnrohss 81
price of Sal. 900 s163, 200 in ali. pofonase
"A dozen other lumber firms are de.
PENDANTS in suits for smaller amounts
under like circumstances. Not one If ths
hrms is guilty Of committing wilIfui tres
pass IN the general acceptation OF the
term. Remember that in every instanne
the tlm5er was bought at public sale az
| provided by law, Is per cent Of the n,,rs
cnaso price was paid at time Of sale ia
balance Of the contract price was n sHS
When the timber was cut 8 per cent IL.
terest was paid on deferred pevments
| ana there Is no question about the acn1a
Inc state did not lose a dollar. The sat-
CLAIMS; and the defendants do not Senv
mat the timber was cut a few mon3hss'
| perhaps a year, after the permits haS
expired by limitation. iiau
Merits Not Considered.
| The recent decision rendered bv our
state supreme court did not enter into fha
merits OF any Of these cases, That deci.
| sion simply sustained the constitution aiitv
Of the provisions OF the timber law Of 1aa3.
which provides that treble value nav H.,
charged for wlItful trespass on state