The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-03-26
N kENZ|E STAYS N JAIL
CONTEMPT ORDER OF CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED
by SUPREME COURT
ALASKA JUDGE TURNED DOWN
Writ of Supersedeas Addressed to
Territorial District Court in Re-
ownership Proceedings Held
to Have Reen Valid.

WASHINGTON, March 25.-The United
States supreme court today denied the
application of Alexander Mckenzie for
leave to file a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. releasing him from ina-
priSonment in California, under the pro-
ceeding of the circuit court of appeals,
for contempt in connection with his con-
duet as receiver of certain mines in
Alaska. The decision of the court was
based on the ground that habeas corpus
proceeding cannot be made the basis OF
a proceeding in error. The opinion was
handed down by the chief justice.
eve hold said the court in announc-
ing the result, "that the circuit court of
appeals had jurisdiction in the premises
and was clothed with the power to pass
on all questions in respect of the means
taken to enforce and maintain it. We
are not called on to revise it's conclusions
on this application"
In his opinion, Chief Justice Fuller con-
sidered the contention that an appeal
did not lie from the orders Of July rs, and
Aug. 10, inasmuch as they were inter-
locutory orders in respect to the appoint
ment of a receiver. Citing the acts bear
ing upon the case, the chief justice SAID:
Reading these acts In pari nateria,
as we should, it may well be concluded
that appeals were thereby authorized
from the district court of Alaska from
and that such appeals might be prosecut-
ed from that court within sixty days
from the entry of such orders
Moreover, the orders of July %, grant
ed an injunction with the appointment
of the receiver.
WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS VALID.
AS to the claim that the writ of super
Sedeas of the circuit court of appeals to
the Alaska court was void for want of
authority to issue it, the chief justice
said:
The court below had refused to grant
an appeal and as an appeal lay the Judge
of the circuit court of appeals had the
power to award it and to grant a super
sedeas, and if in his judgment writ of
supersedeaS was required under the par
ticular circumstances the order for it to
issue was not in itself void, nor was the
process void issued under such order.
Obedience to an order granting super
sedeas is as much required as to an order
for writ of SuperSedeaS and to the
writ thereupon issued. The essential
point is that the order of decree below
is superseded, and that the parties at
fected must govern themselves according
ly.''
Respecting the claim that so much of
the order of the circuit judge as directed
the receiver to restore the property TAX
en- by him was void, the court said:
THE authorities are many that where
the appointment of a receiver is super
seeded it may become his duty to restore
that which has come into his hands to
the parties from whom it has been with
drawn, and that this may be directed to
be done. 1T is at all events evident that
an order that he should do so is not
Vold III itself. We cannot in this applica-
ton review the judgment of the circuit
court of appeals sustaining such an Or
DER and approving of the writs as is
sued
by the supreme court today. The court
adjourned until April g.