New-York tribune., 1901-08-10
JUDGE NOYES'S DEFENCE.
NOME OFFICIAL ANSWERS IN DETAIL
CHARGES MADE AGAINST HIM

Washington Aug a-The Department of Justice
to-day made public the answer Of Judge Arthur
Il Moves the charges preferred again him In the
administration Of his Office Of United States dlstTlct
Judge at Nome. Alaska
Judge NOyes details the story of his trip to
Alaska, giving account OF the acqualntahces
made upon that journey, more particularly the ac-
Guaintance Of Mckenzie and Chipps. who have hg-
ured so largely in connection with the charges
against the Judge, and denies that he had any
communication with either of these men With re-
spect the business of his court on his Journey
or any other time. He takes up in detail the
various charges made against him. and speclhcally
denies every allegation.
He describes the chaotic conditions existing at
Nome at the time Of his arrival, stating that ne
found in the neighborhood of 10000 people of all
classes and the utmost confusion and disorder
prevailing. He sets out that every lot Of ground
IN the whole town had more claimants;
that possession was held in great many instances
by armed force and that he was besieged upon
every hand Immediately upon his arrival by parties
seeking relief against those who. they said. were
wrongfully and unlawfully in possession of their
property, diVesting It Of value and shipping the
proceeds out of the country and the jurisdiction
of the court.
He then tells of his efforts organize his court
and the opportunities TO which he was subjected
by Htgants and counsel. and describes favors that
were attempted be thrust upon him by socitous
individuals. lie recounts the circumstances under
which he appointed Alexander Mckenzie receiver
OF certain mining claims alleging that II had mol
been prearranged that Mckenzie should act as re-
ceiver, but that McKenzies name was suggested
along with others to one of whom the place had
been rendered before 1t offered TO Mckenzie
The Judge reaf1rms the wisdom Of that choice and
compliments McKenzie's administration of the
property.
Defending his appointment of a receiver for the
placer mining claims he denies that he first sug-
gested that remedy. and justihes his action upon
the ground that there were scattered along the
beach thousands Of unemployed men who had been
allured TO Nome by the fabulous tales of wealth
which had been given out and predicated upon ule
result of the workings Of the previous year; that
these men were unemployed. without 1000 or
money, and desperate. and that to have closed
down by injunction Incorporation of the placer
claims would have added largely to the nu1nber o.
unemployed in the camp. He says that he foiio"ed
s This respect the precedents established ny FORMER
4udges of The District Of Alaska, and adds cop'e9
Of a decree in a similar case. l., ,,,o,,,t cd
re admits that in most cases whore ne SppoI,I't
yecefvers the representatons made to the stL
were largely untrue as 10 the capapillttes mil
later and mis- action was predicateu up1h POI; he
fairness Of the presentation OF lle ti7sa -
saws accounted for the comparatively e9liso
expense Of operation by the receivers; tte a. tbe
alleges that. an addluonal pre- ~ ro,ired
protection Of the parties n ihLeTTsr; ;t M reoesed
n that the gold dust realized 10y lle ISC
should be deposited al the safe deposit nauI H.
subject Withdrawal, except. py, oIuSI "a -
Cont with notice 10 the parties Interested alu
also that he further ordered in each case Wien Mlle,.
\ requested that all parties having any inlelt9t % %
IN cIsfnSag interest in the property might AT any
Ser ne n,rnose Of observing the work, and mlg4l
- - rss,Pot ar each and every cleaning mp made
BY the receiver. and that he, IN eNtIy H. HHaa. L,bo
sible tried TO throw every Saieguad@t Ill tba+ II
rrotobt he conserved for the benefit Of the party
who might finally be adjudged its owner.