The Ketchikan miner., 1908-11-28

claim to tract extending from the tide flat, where the only mission building stand, up through the town site diagonally, 530 feet long and 130 feet wide, as first claimed, or 98 feet wide and tapering nearly to point as surveyed under the direction Of the local agent, by deputy Hubbell. The first location of the lines appears to be wholly matter of memory as no actual field notes or surveyors plat thereof have been presented and no authentic boundary marks were shown to the deputy conforming to their alleged boundary. It is to be remark ed that in the large village of Ketchi- kan, the attorney found no witnesses or other evidence to substantiate their claim of occupancy of the whole area, nor proof of the original posi-
 tion and length of lines, although there were, probably, many old resi- dents, besides the witnesses for the other side, who would have known the facts of their first establishment. nesses, resident in the town but asserted that only the absent mission aries know the facts.
 The case presented by those who protest against the present form of the mission survey represents that all that part of the survey lying north of a certain planked street, is occupied by their cleared land, houses and fenced gardens, that they have deeds and satisfactory chain of title dating back to Indian occupancy, and the their said land has ever been occupied by the mission, nor were there any lines thereof but those of the regular streets and lots by which they had bought, and that they never knew of any mission right or claim thereto having been asserted until served with a notice in December, 1906, by attorney J. H. Cobb, setting forth the dimensions of the mission claim, of 530xl30 feet, as above alleged.
 On the diagram, the alleged bound ary of the original mission tract has been marked, but it is evidently in- correct and inconsistent in the des- cription set forth in the pleas of the claimant. It has been shown by the protestants that when the early citi- zens gave money to purchase the Indian house and gave it to the church people it was with the dis tinct condition that they establish in that house hospital within one year: and is also declared that the gift is void, ny performance of the contract. It is unnecessary for this office to consider these latter points in the disposal of the case. It is evident that the deputy ran his 1 lines and fixed his corners as directed by the missionary in charge and that neither in form CT area of the tract nor length nor direction Of his lines did he conform to any prior descrip- tion. In his letter of October, 1907, the deputy admits that it was impos- sble to find any old lines or corners of the tract from an older survey and 1 that no survey can be made in con- formity with the description and facts on the ground. At the first, (Decem- Der, 1905), the priest in charge urged that the survey be postponed, ald postponement of action by the. govern ment has been sought repeatedly on behalf of the mission, during four years. The deputy's error consisted in regarding the wishes and directions of the agent in charge as more impor- tant to the proper fulflment of his contract than the strict letter of his instructions. His statement in ex- cuse, that "the priest in charge claims that the land included in my survey was used and occupied by the mission and ny no other person, on June 6, l90O," did not jutsify bis running out strip of land through a public street and five city lots, all built upon by peaceful occupants of five to eight years standing, who testify that there has heer protest against tn ir preserc,. A :.4cr feature is in ire ho and land ITS. Ahrams, i, wL'c ase 1t is ..stifed u at tre i1 ter, Mr. .oenkins, agreed to Ct tain divi ,on line between the miss on. line tad Mrs. Abrams house and ' L anu that Hat said, line was mark., bl non stakes and d fence, ny his consent. NOtwithst andirg this, said clergyman induced the deputy to make the survey so as to take in the house and ground of Mrs. ArbamS which acrion is the basis of her pro- test in the case.
 In view of he failure of the aitor- nev for the Bishop and Rector afore- said to present any evidence in sup port of the survey as made and in view of the sworn testimony 0. tine prote.tants, and especially Of tue evil