Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-08-26
MOVES | Tells The CASE!
Judge Noyes Makes His First Specific
s Statement Of Facts ID the Nome n
Mining Cases. $5ss 1;
Reasons for the Appointment OF a Re
81 ceiver, and for the Choice 81
Alexander Mckenzie. ~
Confident that He will pc Able to Re-
. :fnte All Charges Before Depart s7:
# zdent Of Justice. II !.

zSt, &'-s - SSS ASCtOE DSPAEG- &sE
sz s; ment Of Justice. ls& i. = .
IT The Seattle Post Intelligence con-
tains a long interview with Judge "a.
II. Noyes of the u. S. district court Of
Alaska, with regard. to the charges
made against him and which, he Will
answer to the depar rtment Of Justice.
The interview with. the Post -Intelli-
sgencer is the first specific statement
that has been made by Judge Noyes,
and in part he says: 5 s. 27 f}. t$'ss q Z
/ Soon after my arrival at Nome the
necessity 4 of immediately appointing
receivers for the Anvil creek claims
was urged and pressed upon me. The
appointrne e1rt III was fist rendered to
James Matthews, but The was going to
the outside and did not care to take
hold. / was practically unacquainted
in the new region and naturally desired
a man nwhorn Z had confidence BY
1SoSoh ~; LILY ~ 1CIS> .ehCQ udlllIduCSSulp
with Alexander Mckenzie and the hon
ored and responsible positions which
he had previously held, II requested him
to take the position He consented:
Ss39kktssI believed that the sreceivership
would be temporarily. III 4 BY reason of
the difficulties to Immediately procure
. a large bond L fixed the sum in a small
amount with the idea Of enlarging It
later, if deemed advisable, which was
done. I directed that most of the old
employees o. the company that operated
the claims be retained, and that. the
property be worked with expedition
and economy. further made an or.
der as soon as the. defendants requested
it, that all the gold extracted from the
claims be placed in safe deposit9vaults;
allowing them to be present ait the
sclean-1lp and the privilege of weigh
ing all gold. .si=.., S z e e 6 ;.,y
saWhenSthe defendants made demand
that the receiver give a bond OF, $780,
600 on each claim I consented with the
understanding that the property pay
the high premium for the bond, which
they declined to do. s There was never
any contention that Mr.. Mckenzie did
not work the property in an econom-
ical and judiciouss manner After
various phases Of litigation a writ Of
superseded was received from the. cir
cult court Of appeals. g5I consider that
] complied with It absol olute1y Con-
tention, however, has been made that
I issued an order directing the marshal
not to permit the defendants to take
possession o. the gold which had been
extracted from the claims In dispute,
This is positively without foundation.
\ Never by any WORD, act or deed, did
+ say or do anything, directly OF in
directly, to interfere with or obsbruct
the order or process OF the higher
court. A4idavits, however, !, were pre-
senfed to the circuit court as to the APP
pearance Of the records, and upon the
strength Of these incorrect affidaYits +
have been cited to appear and show
cause why ! should not be punished
FOR cpntempt of court in failing to com
ply with me order in the matter Of al
loWance Of appeal. Instead Of indulg-
ing In the least possible evasion I, on
the contrary exerted every effort to en-
force the court Il ord en-. Il ls
hen The cases at issue were be-
.ftt, Tore Z me refused tog allow an appeal
because BEG III my opinion, the appoint
sII,llent I,l of a receiver was not an appeal
able able order r The code specially pro-
iVides for an appeal of an injunctional
order. ON auth critics cited / did
not believe the inj juncti onals feature in:
cident to the appoin intm ents of receivers
made The order ppeaIable. This feat
3ure was 1nade T,r ON inent for the first
time IN the circuit oairt sof appeals.
EoS cont ntion was ever made before
ms that the III njuneti onal order incident
to the al,poin intmenft off a receiver was
the eaIable order piided for by
the code. was for the firs;ts time
fforeed to the front In the argument, as
seems toI me- before tie circuit court
cf appeals.
81 the early malls recei we'd Feb
rual last heard that charges had
been filed against me and orwaraed
from Nashing did not receive
them until July A and knew nothing
previous ID that time as to the nature
of the charge had never had ol.
read 4 copy Of the opinion at the cir
cult court es appeals until long after
several copies were in the calnp.