The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-25
FACTS AGAINST HIN.
A Summary Of the Charges Against
Judges Noyes.
AND UsURPED LAW
Receiver for Mines-McI<en-
z1e's Part.

/
Receiver for Mines--McKen-
z1e's Part.
Although the case of Judge Arthur
Noyes Of Minneapolis territorial judge OF
| the second district of Alaska has been
before the public in one form or another
for a long time there is no clear under
Standing of the charges against him.
These may be found set forth in full in
the findings of the United States circuit
court of appeals for the ninth district in
both the case against NoyesS and the case
against Alex Mckenzie, both ofSWhich
were published in the Congressional Rec
ord Of Feb. between pages 1872 and 1895.
| The findings are also supplemented with
| summary Of the case against Noyes pre-
| pared by his enemies and submitted to
the attorney general. This summary Is
supported by excerpts from the evidence
! in the Noyes case. Although made by
those opposed to the judge, study of the
findings shows that it adheres strictly to
| the facts. AS the review of the Noyes
case made by the judges of the ninth cir
cult would require two pages Of T h e
Journal for publication it has been
thought sufficient to publish this sum-
mary:
| On the Way to Nome.
! In the spring OF 1900 Judge Noyes was ap-
pointed judge, and in July proceeded to Alas
| ka, the court over which he was to preside,
being stationed at st. Michael short dis
| lance from Nome. On his way across the
| continent to the scene OF his judicial labors
| he was accompanied by Alexander Mckenzie,
| a man whom he had known for twenty years,
| having resided with him for long period
| of time in the state of North Dakota. On
| taking the steamer for Cape Nome, Mckenzie
| and Judge Noyes were joined among others,
by Robert Chips. man who in the pCeced-
ing year had located a claim near Nome,
| which claim had been located prior to that
time by others. Chips being really a
| Jumper" -,.. ..
Chips had spent-a considerable portion OF
the preceding winter in New York city and
Washington, D. c., meeting Mckenzie and
| others, including Judge Noyes, In Washing
ton. He had been told then that Judge Noyes
was a candidate for tudgeship, and that he
was regarded by Mckenzie as a good man
Chips had, while in New York, made a deco
of claim he had jumped to Alexander Nc.
kenzie, who held it for the Alaska Gold Min
ing company, and he received in exchange
for this deed a considerable sum Of money
and the promise of 100000 in stock of the
company. .-- .- -. -....
On the steamship going to Nome Chips
| discussed with Judge Noyes his claim as {
jumper and the fact that he was about tt
commence litigation. and Judge Noyes tolt
him that he supposed he would want receiV
} er appointed. 1t was his understanding, de-
: rived from his conversation with Mckenzie
, that they would have "a shade the best OF it.
in any lawsuit likely to be brought before
| Judge Noyes.
The party reached Nome on Saturday, Jul!
q, and at o'clock in the afternoon OF Mon
day, July g. there were filed before Judge
, Noyes half dozen applications for receivers
representing claims to as many OF the rlcnes
mines in that neighborhood.
y The Scheme.
Careful inspection of the bills of complain
3 in the various cases in which receivers Wer
3 asked for will show that the original intention
CT the complainants was to apply merely TO
iniunct:ve relief. for after setting up tn
, names OF the parties, alleged discovery AM
3 location entry filing OF notice OF Location
with the office of the recorder, custer by tn
, | Defendants and work upon the premises D.
them in reckless way: that the premise
are particularly valuable for gold; that IN
| defendants are insolvent and irresponsible
and the gold is being secreted, the bills con
ttnue by declaring that unless the defendants
ETC. be restrained. ETC., the claim Will D
: wholly lost to the complainants ana destroye
for mining purposes, following the foregoing
NV an excuse for not sooner presenting Dii
of complaint and recitng the bringing OF al
action at law. They then say 'nat in oiue
to preserve the rights Of the conplalnants
etc., it is necessary, proper and conven,en
: that a receiver be appointed. etc. -.:
! # will be seen from the foregoing summar
that not single statement is made IN IN
bill Of complaint justifying the appointneh
of 4 receiver for placer mining CAIN. an
that the naragraph asking for such a receive
md in n
tho substance of the bill. That this IS g. rae
y further appears by the circumstances snow
e hv the accompanying documents. that Juos
. Moves from the bench declared that the loe
G of a receiver was his own susgesnon.
In the granting of injunctions IN the Varl
| GUS causes, which injunctlons were efan'e
| at the same time that receivers were appoint
al Indge Noyes violated the civil govern
! ment law of Alaska, which provides (secuo
9s4 naragraph 397, session statutes, nrst SEES
=. | sion Atty sixth congress} that BEFORE allo"
> ing an injunction. the court OF oNoee sAa
ID require Of the plaintiff an undertaking. VIII
one or more sureties, to the effect tnat Il
,, will nav all costs and disbursements, thu
NAV be decreed to the defendant, and sue
DAMAGES. not exceeding the amount therel
e specified, as he may sustain by reason OF tn
e Injunction If the same be wrongful or with
Il | out sufficient cause -...
d ...- A Violation. "a. .s.I-.-
p Judge Moves again clearly violated the we
S established principles of law in that the re
10 ceivers named on July %. 1900, were al
| ponted ex-parte No suggestions are mac
= in the bills of complaint justifying or excu:
ing the appointment OF ex-parte receiver
No such emergency is stated as would e.
cuse the appointment Of receiver witho,
notice, nor is any difficulty alleged In tt
way of serving process or rule to show caus
The simple fact Is that, without excuse
justification, Judge Noyes, in July 20, tran
| ferred to the possession Of Alexander Nickel
| zie his old friend and companion on the shi
six Of the richest mining claims in Alask
I worth together hundreds Of thousands, If n
. millions, of dollars. "e.< ~
The fact that in at least two cases the re
ord shows that the receiver went into po
J session on the very day of his appointment
the parties heretofore in possession being
| that day served with process, indicates tn
no reason existed why a rule to show eau
might not well have issued before the makil
| Of an appointment.
The bond required Of the receiver in ca
case bore no relation to the value of the pro
erty coming into his hands.
Chips VS.. Lindeberg Amount OF 60
Heretofore extracted, 100000; being TAX
out daily, $4,000; bond, 5000.
Rogers VS. Kjellman: Gold theretofo
extracted, $40, 900; being taken out daily, $50
bond $4,000.
Webster VS.. Nakkela: Gold theretofore e
tracted. 200: being taken out daily, s5(
bond $1,000 zSgssyh
Messing VS.. rornansie: Gold heretofore e
tracted, $15O,0oo being taken out daily, s., of
bond $1,000 :
Although the suggestion in the bills of col
plant that the mines were being zunsklful
and wastefully worked was manifestly i
serted merely for the purpose Of securing i
az oil