Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-02-14

Ry NJ. H. JEWELL.
THE M'KENZIE CASE.

Notwithstanding the decision of the
San Francisco court, the many friendsof
Alexander Mckenzie in North Dakota
will not believe he was guilty of inten-
tional wrong-doing or that he is in willful
contempt of court. Acting under advice
of recognized competent legal authority,
thousands of miles away from the court
issuing the orders, and resting on the
theory that the papers were not properly
filed in the Alaska district court, Nc
Kenzie did not believe he was in con-
tempt If he was in contempt there
were mitigating circumstances that do
not seem to warrant such a severe SEN
tence. It should've bornein mind thatat
no stage and in no court has there been
a hearing or decision on the merits o.
the case. While Mckenzie was in
Washington awaiting the decision OF the
United States supreme court on the
jurisdictional question a San Francisco
court was hearing testimony of biased
individuals in relation to the. Nome con-
troversy and alleged receivership con-
spiracy, which proceedings were doubt
less had for the purpose of prejudicing
the minds Of the court in the contempt
case to follow Testimony Of men who
basely betrayed and sold out their COM
pranions, and who openly endeavored to
bride Judge Noyes was taken, and no
cross examination was had or rebutting
testimony put in. Judge Noyes, against
whom these witnesses testifed-some of
them guilty of contempt in the Nome
court and fugitives from justice, was
not given and has not yet had an oppor-
tuunity to be heard. It looks very
much like a base conspiracy and the
verdict in the contempt case is unusu-
ally severe.
There are those in North Dakota, like
Capt MEG ormick and James Mathews,
whose integrity is unquestioned, who
were in Alaska before and at the time OF
the appointment of a receiver for those
Nome properties. MI. Mathews. was
asked by Judge Noyes to accept the re-
ceivership. This was before Mckenzie
was appointed. Is there a man in North
Dakota but will believe James Mathews
of Larimore? His testimony and that Of
others who have knowledge of the facts
in all equity ought to have been taken
and placed along side of that given by
the enemies OF, the Mckenzie syndicate,
if testimony was to have anything to do
J; with the decision of the contempt fea-
lures, andsthe wording at the conclusion
OF the court seems to. indicate that in
formation or testimony of some kind
outside and beyond the question of mere
contempt had to do with the decision.
With all due regard to the court and
its sincerity, right and duty to maintain
its dignity and enforce its orders, in
sieV Of much information. possessed by
friends of Mckenzie and not in the
possession of or before the court, il does
seem that the decision of the court is
unusual, severe and wrong. Oh" -,
A Washington special to the Mime
apolis Journal bears on this question as
follows " @"% 1>-s &
It is claimed here that the contempt
proceedings against Mckenzie did not
touch the newspaper charges against
either Noyes or Mckenzie or go to the
merits of the main case in any way. II
was simply a proceeding against Nc:
Kenzie for disobeying an order of the
San Francisco court, and that was all
4 This being true, the fact that Mckenzie
has been found guilty does not many
sense. determine any questions relating
to the manner in which he secured his
Nome reeeiyerships or administered
them, and the San Francisco. judge yes,
tsrday, in passing sentence for contempt
went out Of his way to- administer gratu.
itously q sroast" IN Judge Noyes.
Mckenzie's Washington friends do moi
y kaoWfWhether Mckenzie will serve his
y full termEof a year or be released before
then on payment Of 9 heavy fine in lieu
of Imprisonment. They had no word
from San Francisco and decline to ex.
press any opinion. Il NJ, vii H. "
Should Mckenzie serve his full sen.
tance, however, it is clear that d great
1911 05IlGC VIII W u0A0 IiIu,Sduu ElIc LOEQ.
pany he represents, which has invested
several hundred thousand. dollars in
mining properties at Nome, regarding
the title to which no question has evel
been raised Mckenzie lis president and
general manager $of this company, ano
bis being In jail may be taken advantage
0f by his enemies to jump his claims al
enle.or atIeastf to tie them up for thu
Whole8oft the coming season It is ais
possible that attempts may be made to
call the Mckenzie com1pany's titles tx
sihseae claims iii questionsdurin the I'M
yrisonfnent and annoy the oWners il
other waysthat would be Impossible
we're mckenzie atsGberty.
SsIItshould be sale, III fairness to all con
csrnea, that the one-year* sentence wal
uo55a surprise TO Mcksnzis,s Washing.
tpn friends, who have recognized from
I beginning that Mckenzie, when Till
sss1ssSrem court of the United States de
ared that the San francisco court d
u peals had Jurisdiction til try the con
Rmptsspreceedings, was at fell swocI
hsnaed over to his enemies. It Il
claimed that tho San Francisco cour