The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-02

months. The question raised was entirely
new and without precedent. The decision
applies not only IN the LeWis-JOhnson
case bat in six other important cases now
pending before L. 5. District Judge c s
Johnson, at Sitka. in which the latter is
personally Interested II is said that the
decision will not be appealed from. II this
is true all seven cases VIII remain untried
until congress make laws remedyng the
defects pointed out by Judge Hanford.
The difficulty in the Lewis-Johnson case
was that Judge Johnson had been one Of
the attorneys for Lewis prior 10 his eevs-
ton 10 the bench. and was therefore dis
qualified II hear and decide il. The law
provides that IN such cases a transfer shall
be made TO the nearest district or circuit
court in the state. or in ease there shall be
ne such court. 10 the most convenient cir
cult court In an adjoining state. There Is
no other United States court OF equal or
greater jurisdiction In Alaska AMI a trans
fer vas attempted to the Federal cour, in
this city, being the most convenient TIT
bunsl apparently contemplated Judge
Hanfovd says the word adjoining is the
stumbling block 10 such a transfer
The following Is The fun text 81 the de-
clsion as fled by Judge Hanford:
This suit WAS commenced In the United
STATES district court Tor Alaska and was
pending therein when Hon {. : johnson
-
soU vas al attorney for the complainant
until u short time before his induction into
Office. when, oy an order ~ The court he
WAS permitted 20 withdraw from all cases
in which he appeared as an attorney n.
IS the sole judge 81 the only court in Alas
ka. having jurisdiction pf the controversy.
The compliments finding themselves II he
pTeliicarlent 81 having A case in a o4rr+
The Judge Of which is disqualified 20 hear
and decide IT, they sought to obtain relief
N rpVirg tn transfer IL 20 This cuur; IN
PROVISIONS
Untt@. States Revised Statutes
These statutes provide In effect thar
whenever the judge ~ any district court
Is interested "a any SUIT pending therein
o. has been II counsel for either party. or
= related 20 or connected with either YAr-
y. K snail be has duyy On application cf
either party 70 CsuSe he fac; 10 BE- eo-
tered 81 the records % the court and 70
order thu, an aa1 nenttcstesi COPY Of the
record be forthwith certified . the rext
circuit court for ne dlsfrIr;. ar5 Y there
De no ctscQlt court therein. - tae next C+r-
clgcsIi. Cc0g; n tire state. aG9 = there b. M
circuit SoGTt n ire state. 70 tns aeNt CON.
vyraeat Circuit court IN a. sdjou{ne Seate-
and re GREAT ccur' sEa5l upJn Alag ~
s0Sh record with Is clerk, take carrfzars,-.
q ard proceed 70 hear the case, - Ike
manner as Il II had Originally aud rAntftiI.
~ k@en CONNIE rcsf therein
If pen a hearing the District cour+ fo4
Alaska granted the motion ard caus~a m
record 10 Re raaGe and fhs cause es~f fas
nts A certified transcript II the o.. feg
transferring ne case. t0sethe~ with what
appears 10 b. .ae origtn24 gsaE~srs Aas been
certified 20 this cegrt, the cause has ha&a
4ockese2. she compliments =Ave erferAs
= general appearance b tSetr ATTORNEYS
ard TIE Ssfea61ns has appears5 sp.scga h
BY rs attorney and rlest objections go ans
proceedings - THIS coUFt, on the grouna
TIA, the court has nog Jurisdiction os the
parties G. the controversy.
This court ca&.nos take jurisdiction cs