The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-27
Reprehensible Tenacity.


The tenacity with which Judge Noyes held
to the idea that his orders of July and
August were not appeaiable and the evident
determination to do nothing which would
facilitate obedience to the mandates of the
appellate court must be reprehended.
In his answer to the order to show cause
why he should not stand committed for con-
tempt in disobeying this writ Of supersedeas.
Mckenzie says that Judge Noyes had made
an order that forbade him from going to the
vaults, and that he could not get the dust
himself. Notwithstanding the denial of the
judge that he has made any such order
there was prevalent belief in that commu-
nifty that his authority prevented the delivery
of the property to the defendants The Alas
kan marshal served the writ. but refused to
proceed further. Although force was threat
ened to he used. by the advice and at the
request of the judge, peace was maintained
by the neral influence Of the presence of the
United States soldiers. An order, direction,
opinion from Judge Noyes would have
obviated all trouble secured obedience to the
writ and avoided all the subsequent unhappy
proceedings. And if his positions were cor
rect and sound in law. he would have been
sustained and vindicated in that regard, upon
! motion to dismiss the appeal, had been
done in a case, similar. but Of less objection
| able features, in the fifth circuit. The writ
! of suoersedeas was writ under the seal of
the circuit court Of appeals and manifestly
| not void. 1t was directed to the district
| Judge as we'll as to the other parties. His
plain duty was to obey it himself, to use all
lawful means to have it obeyed in every par
| ticular bv the others, and not to obstruct
| impair or avoid it's execution. By his rigid
| adherence to his opinions and his narrow
| construction of the mandate of the writ. he
| compelled another recourse to the appellate
| court That court maintained it's jurisdiction
appointed dts own officer and directed him to
proceed to Nome and enforce the writ, which
was done in the manner heretofore stated.
! Topl<ul< Case.
| The "Topkuk case;'' which is also embraced
| In the charges, differs only in particulars
| from the cases above mentioned. There a
\ rule issued directed to the defendants in a
bill in chancery to show cause why a receiv
! err should not be appointed for certain mines
! then in the possession and being worked by
| the Black Chief Mining company. which hao
| obtained possession properly and by purchase
from original locators. A receiver was ap
pointed; and upon motion to discharge MIN
the company offered to give bond in double
| the amount required of the receiver. to Worb
the mines in an economical and miner-like
manner and report to the court as required
and turn in to the court all the gold ex-
tracted from the mine. These offers were al
refused and the receiver continued in posses
sion. The court evidently acted upon ms
predetermina+ion that in all cases of dispute
as to the possession of mines. the course O
procedure should be the appointment of re
ceivers; and this, frequently, irrespective o
/ the inhrm character of the claims of thu
complainants.
In the final determination of these cases
from Nome, all the complaints, in aid O
which the receiver was appointed, Wer'
abandoned and DEGREES entered in favor o.
the defendants.
In Lindeberg VS.. Chips, pursuant to slip
ulation of counsel, the Judgment of the dis
trict court was reversed, and decree wa