In regard to the respondent Geary, I agree
with the finding of the court to the effect that the contempt alleged
against him is not sufficiently established."

Judge Morrow concurs in the findings contained in the opinion of Judge
Gilbert, and adds: "In my judgment the evidence establishes the fact
that there was a conspiracy between the respondent Noyes, McKenzie, and
others to secure possession of certain valuable mining claims at Nome,
Alaska, under proceedings involving the appointment of a receiver, for
the purpose of working the properties and obtaining the gold deposited
in the claims. To carry these proceedings to a supposed successful
conclusion, Noyes, McKenzie, and others found it a necessary part of the
scheme to resist the process of this court. In pursuance of this
conspiracy, the contempt charged against Noyes was committed; but I
agree with Judge Gilbert that this conspiracy is outside the charge of
contempt, and in view of the fact that the respondent Noyes holds a
judicial position, I concur in his judgment that the respondent be
required to pay a fine of one thousand dollars."

A giant conspiracy indeed, far-reaching in its ramifications, which
received its death-blow in the arrest and sentence of Alexander
McKenzie, and which may be said to have had its proper interment in the
recent adjudication of the Circuit Court of Appeals. It only remains for
the President to remove from office the judge who has so flagrantly
disgraced the federal bench, and to appoint a successor under whose
administration of justice a marvelous mineral region will develop with
rapidity and confidence.[1]

As this book goes to print, renewed efforts are being made in the
United States Senate, by Messrs. Hansbrough and McCumber of North
Dakota, to "vindicate" McKenzie and Noyes. The present method of
vindication appears to consist mainly in attacking the intelligence and
integrity of the three eminent jurists who constitute the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The credit for relieving northwestern Alaska of this judicial-receiver
curse belongs to three equally essential factors: first, Charles D.
Lane, president of the Wild Goose Company, who had the courage to fight
the "ring" to a finish without compromise; second, Samuel Knight, of the
San Francisco bar, through whose ability and aggressiveness the matter
was properly and clearly brought before the appellate court; third, the
Circuit Court