605 



made by the forest commission and allowing 10,000 more acres than 

 the appraisal. Upon these terms it can be carried out and upon no 

 other because that resolution is based upon that proviso. 



The third ground of complaint at the outset was, that the com-' 

 mission had not aided the State in procuring lands at tax" sales. This 

 was a matter entirely beyond the control of the commission. It is 

 unfortunate that greater powers have not be^en lodged in the com- 

 mission, because if the power had been lodged in the commission at 

 the outset to appear before the Comptroller upon applications for 

 cancellations, the State would have been, to-day, in possession of 

 several thousands of acres of land, the title of which has been canceled 

 by the Comptroller, by reason of the fact that the State was unrepre- 

 sented; that it was an esc parte proceeding; that all that was necessary to 

 be done was for some one to bring in some affidavits with regard 

 to which there was no opposition, no person being interested in fight- 

 ing the elaim, and in view of the fact that at the Comptroller's office, 

 up to a very late period, it had been deemed the wisest policy 

 to allow the title of lands to lapse and that it has not been deemed 

 gocd policy to procure lands at tax sales for the State to retain title to 

 them even where the question of cancellation was doubtful. So that, 

 instead of the forest commission being at all blameable by reason pf 

 no greater quantity of lands having been acquired^ the commissioners 

 are entitled to credit, by , reason of the fact that it is through them 

 that the wholesale cancellations of land on ex parte affidavits has been 

 stopped, and to-day it is • very difficult to obtain a cancellation 

 because, where affidavits are now filed, the forest commission makes 

 it its business to appear before the Comptroller and see that the facts 

 exist as they are claimed, and put in opposing affidavits and make 

 opposition so that the State may retain the lands if it is fairly and 

 honestly entitled to them. 



At the outset these were the grounds of complaint. During the 

 progress of this investigation there has been added to these grounds 

 of complaint the gossip, so to speak, of discontented and dissatisfied 

 employes, or of a discontented and dissatisfied employe who richly 

 deserved the discharge which he received, and the gossip, the 

 unfounded statement of a single defeated litigant, who has a feeling 

 against this commission by reason of the fact that it has performed 

 its duty by prosecuting him in the civil and criminal courts of this 

 State whenever he has been found robbing the State. It is upon the 

 evidence of those two men to-day that any ground of complaint exists 

 against the forest commission. Their testimony I have discussed 

 somewhat at as great length as it seems to me to be desirable to 



