The San Francisco call., 1901-10-19

noon he was the target for
questions on cross and redirect eXam1na-
ton before Commissioner Heacock, and as
yet his sensational, startling evidence
given against Noyes, Mckenzie and Wood
remains practically unshaken.
hume was taken in hand at the begin
ming Of the morning session by Judge Nc
Laughlin. He displayed the same cool,
self-possessed. and cautious spirit which
characterized his manner on the stand
during the proceedings of the first day.
On the face of it his testimony has n
damaging look to Noyes, but the latter's
attorneys smile and cry "Hearsay, hear
say That will be their plea, and they
are working toward that end at present
in this cross-eXamination. An attack
against Hume's credibility was made yes
terday by the introduction of three af11-
davits, all Of which were read into the
records and labeled as exhibits in the
case. Hume did some clever unimpeached
explaining Of these aff1davits, and when
the afternoon session closed the amicus
curiae. E. S. Pilsbury, had him well in
hand reciting instances of Judge Noyes'
peculiar methods of distributing justice.
The evidence of yesterday brought forth
no startling new facts, except in the re-
direct examination, when Hume began to
recite the instances which led him to
belief in Judge Noyes' compatibility.
So far the attorneys have been courte-
Gus almost to an extreme but yesterday
afternoon a bit of testiness was DISPLAYED
which is likely to lead to an occasional
fling of sarcasm. This testimony taking
before a Commissioner offers but little
opportunity for the interposition of OBJ
jections by attorneys.
Once during the morning session, when
an affidavit and the identity of a sigma
ture was called into question, Pillsbury
expressed a desire to go downstairs and
have 1T out before the Judges of the Cir
cult Court Of Appeals. Mclaughlin did
not press matters and the crossfre went
on.
Francis ]. Heney fell into the ATTORNEYS
battle over these same afidavits. He act
ed as reader, and after using his voice
for a good half-hour expressed a soulful
desire to shirk the reading of the rest Of
the document. The amicus curiae was
not of the same mind, so the reading went
on. Heney accused PiIlsbury of an at
tempt to try the cases in the newspapers
and wanted the affidavits read for the
benefit of the reporters. Pillsbury was re-
lentless, so court, court reporter, attor-
neys and all had to listen.
SOME HUME AFFIDAVITS.
The af1idavits were the central point Of
the days proceedings There are three Of
them-one executed on the 2Oth day of
October, 1900, the second on June IS, 1901
and the third on July Is, 1901. The July
| affidavit is in the handwriting and bears
the signature of Hume. 1t follows:
That reservng from the effect Of this affi-
davit any statement made to me by Alexander
Mckenzie. I viii state that 1 do not know
/ of my own knowledge, have 1 been in
formed, nor do 1 believe, that Arthur H
Noyes has presiding Judge of the District
/ Court for District of Alaska, Second Division
| received any money pecuniary considera-
tions. nor demanded the same to influence any
| decision, Judgment or decree rendered or to be
rendered by him such Judge
The affidavit Of October 20 was appar-
entity surprise to Hume when presented
1t contains an account of Hume's efforts
to find the clerk of the court, with whom
he wished to file the complaints and
orders for the receiYerships Of the Anvil