The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1909-04-09
GRILL LUMBER KING
REPRESENTATIVE C. R. DAVIS AT
TACKS FRED WEYERHAEUSER.
Minnesota Congressman Refers to Him
as Freebooter" and INDUCES in
Several Other Pet Names; Timber
Lands Were Secured BY Question
able Means; Taxation; Spirited
Talk BY Third District Man.
From The st. Paul Dispatch.l

Washington April 6-Representative
Charles r. Davis OF Minnesota today
replied in vigorous manner to the
criticisms of his speech on lumber,
made by Frederick Wcyerhacuser OF
St. Paul, the head of the so-called
lumber trust in The Dispatch re-
Gently. Addressing the house on the
subject last Friday, Mr.. Davis was
severe in his denunciation OF the
methods that had been used i'll build.
ing up the great lumber fortunes III
the northwest, and he was particularly
caustic in his references to the Min
neapolis muItimllionaires."
\ report reached here today stating
in substance that Mr.. Weyerhaeuser
had replied to Mr. Davis, and that he
asked why Mr. Davis had not pur
chased timber and grown rich himself.
1t was further said that the lumber
magnate had charged that the tim
Der had been cut off thousands of
acres because the rate of taxation
made it Improbable to hold it, and
that he mad denied, as alleged by Mr.
Davis. that the cut-over land was
practically worthless.
Says He Wouldn't Cheat the People.
Representative Davis discussed the
three propositions thus set forth in
his statement and he refers to timber
freebooters,' and "the rapacity of the
lumberman,' and charges in substance
that thousands of acres of timber land
were secured by methods that did not
meet with public approval.
Il have not seen the text of Mr..
Weyerhaeuser's interview" began Mr..
Davis. His question as to why | did
no purchase timber when it was sell
ing for $l.25 per acre is puerie.
Il lacked first the inclination to 90
into the business, and. second, the
financial ability to acquire timber in
large tracts. Had my occupation for
tine past twenty five years been in the
line of seeking wealth at the expense
of the people, | might have been finan-
cially able to have purchased large
and thereby accumulated a fortune.
Ny activities were i'm other directions.
Many men, who might be named, pre-
ferred to pillage and plumber, and,
sweeping from one state to another,
acquired vast holdings of timber, thus
amassing tremendous fortunes.
Makes Bitter Attack on Weyerhaeuser.
Judging from his course he had large
supply of the inclination to trade in
timber to acquire lands in the public
domain at nominal prices, and he has
prOfted greatly thereby.
Favorable land laws. notably the
stone and timber act, materially aided
him and others in this regard. To
some men the public domain and es-
pecaly school, university and swamp
lands are sacred. | had no inclina-
ton to encroach on them. The fact
remains undisputed that Mr.. Weyer-
haeuser did avail himself of his OPP
portunities and he cannot befog the
question by asking me why ! did not
become a timber freebooter
Mr.. Davis then took up the ques-
ton of the rates of taxation on tim
Der lands. He said:
Says Tax Was Very Low.
Il think the taxation statistics of
Minnesota and Wisconsin will show
that during the time that Mr.. Viewer
haeuser was accumulating his large
interests in timber the rates we're verv
low, and this was particularly true
during the twenty or twenty five years
i'll which he was engaged i'm amassing
the greater part of his fortune. 1t is
only since timber became scarce that
the state authorities have sought to
partially reimburse the state finances
by increasing the taxation. 1t does
not look well for Mr.. Weyerhaeuser
to shield himself behind the taxation
project"
Mr.. Davis contends that there are
thousands of acres of cut over land i'm
the northwest that is worthless for all
practical purposes
The auditors records in Minnesota
and Wisconsin will SHOW" he said,
that enormous tracts of lands i'm
those states were. of such little value
after the removal of the timber that
the owners refused to pay even the
meagre tax rate, and it is a fact that
large areas of such land were al
lowed to be forfeited to the states and
lost to the original owner because
they were not deemed worthy of re-
demption from tax sales"