The ALASKA
SOV'R’DOVGH
Vol. 1. No. 15
Douglas, Alaska, Tuesday, December 12, 1911
10c a Copy
BEARS KILL AND MAIM HUNDEREDS
“The least that can be said of the
legal protection of the brown bear in
Alaska, is that it is an absurdity,”
sevs Governor Clark in his annual re
port on the game law which has just
been mailed to Washington. “If this
protection is continued, the menace to
human life will be still more serious,
and agriculture and stock-raising in
some of the more favored portions >f
the territory will be discouraged. The
superintendent of the government’s ex
periment station stock farm on Kodiak
island makes a strong appeal for the
protection of settlers and live-stock
against the ravages of the brown bear,
declaring that it has become a ques
tion whether we shall have a game pre
serve or a great agricultural and stock
raising region on Kodiak island. The
existence of the brown bear protec
tive feature of the law, wrhich has noth
ing whatever to commend it, is so
strongly opposed by the residents of the
Kenai and Alaska peninsulas that the
enforcement of the just provisions of
the law is rendered more difficult.”
Thomas W. Hammon, a U. S. com
missioner at Illanma, in a letter now on
file in the governor 's office, says that
he personally knows of more than 100
white men and Indians who have been
killed by the vicious but protected
brown bear. “They are the most de
structive of other game and human life
of all the Alaska animals,” he says.
“They are the king of all Alaska’s
game and I have known of more than
one hundred white men and natives be
ing killed or crippled by brown bears.
I very much doubt if there is a single
village in Cooks Inlet or on the Alaska
peninsula that doesn’t show one’ or
more natives who have been crippled
in encounters with them in the brush
or grass. She bears invariably attack
both man and other beasts when their
cubs are young. ’ ’ The commissioner
says also that the protectoion extended
to the animal has also had a disastrous
effect on the natives by stopping the
sale of skins. “I personally know of
some settlements being abandoned by
the natives on account of their not be
ing able to sell the skins of the brown
bear. Two of these settlements are on
the south end of Kamasak Bay on the
west side of Cooks Inlet. ’ ’
In his report the governor says that
“game is still plentiful in almost all
parts of Alaska. This statement ap
plines to both animals and birds. The
consensus of opinion among the war
dens, licensed guides and residents gen
erally, seems to be that moorse are in
creasing in numbers in the Kenai pen
insula—a fact of extraordinary signifi
cance when it is considered that this
peninsula is the region selected by
nearly all the non-resident hunters as
their hunting ground. Caribou are in
creasing, it is believed, in the Alaska
peninsula and in one or two of the larg
er islands immediately west of the pen
insula.
“On the other hand, there has un
questionably been an enormous de
crease in the number of deer in south
eastern Alaska, a fact which is due
principally to the abnormally heavy
snowfall of the last two winters. The
prohibition of market selling of ven
ison in 1911 has proven to be a wise
measure, and is supported by local pub
lie opinion. The prohibition should be
extended by regulation to include 1912.
“There has been no large general de
crease in the supply of game birds.
There has been an increase in many lo
calities, and a decrease in several plac
es, and where forest and brush fires
have swept over the country, killing
young ptarmigan and grouse.”
Under the head of “Violations of
the Law,” he says: “Several gross
violations of the law by residents have
been reported, and wherever possible,
prosecuted, but in general there has
been a fair observance of the provis
ions of the game protection act through
out the territory. The people believe
in the necessity of a game law, but cer
tain unjust provisions of the act, such
as as the protection of the trouble
some and dangerous brown bear, are
universally condenmned. ’ ’ Eight or
ten conviction were secured during the
year of persons guilty of violating the
law, and the governor believes that un
questionably a large number of in
fractions were prevented by the known
presence of the game wardens.
THE CHARGES AGAINST OVERFIELD
Kepresentatives of the Department
of Justice are in Fairbanks investi
gating charges against Judge Peter
Overfield.
Some of the charges are rather seri
ous, if true, and there are seventeen
of them altogether. They range from
irregularities in the appointment of a
receiver for the Washington-Alaska
bank to improper influences in the ap
pointment of U. S. commissioners, and
a lack of sympathy with the prose
cuting attorney in the prosecution of
criminals to personal associations with
ject as improper characters.
The charges recite that last spring,
following a meeting of the creditors of
the defunct bank, a committee called
upon the judge and presented a set of
resolutions which had been adopted
by the creditors, and which ask for the
removal of F, W. Hawkins from the re
ceivership on the ground that he was
intimately associated with the owners
of the institution, and other provisions
which the creditors hoped would in
crease the probability of indicttnents
of the bank officials by the grand ju
ry, and also that the court refused to
grant the creditors permission to look
into the affairs of the bank. It is
charged that Judge Overfield denied
all of these requests, although he af
terwards applied to Washington for a
bank examiner to examine the bank.
The charges indicate mueh con
tention between the court and the pros
ecuting attorney in the trial of crim
inal cases. The judge is accused of
having hampered the prosecuting at
torney in'the matter of prosecution of
criminal cases, and that his treatment
of the prosecuting attorney is a mat
ter of much comment among all those
who have business in the court. It is
charged, also, that the manner of se
lecting the jurors, against -which the
prosecuting attorney has protested, is
favorable to defendants in criminal
cases, and disadvantageous to the pros
ecutoing attorney’s office. Objection is
made to the character of twro commis
sioners appointed, E. M. Staunton and
Abe Spring. The "morals” of both
men are objected to, and the honesty of
Spring is questioned.
The Sourdough, $3.00 a year.
Since the story of Judge Lyons’ de
cision appeared in this paper a few
weeks ago, the Sourdough has receiv
ed a copy of the decision which was
prepared by Judge Lyons in Ketchi
kan and forwarded to Cordova. The
following, which is the concluding part
of the decision, throws considerable
light upon the case:
“The evidence in this case shows that
one of the mining claims described in
the second amended complaint aButts
on the navigable water of Orca Inlet
for a distance of one thousand or
twelve hundred feet. It shows further
that the structures complained of by
the plaintiffs are in fron{ of said
claim only for a short distance. If
plaintiffs desire to construct a wharf
from their upland to deep water navi
gation, there is nothing to prevent
them from doing so by building from
any portion of the westerly side line
of the eBar mining claim in a norther
ly direction, which wharf would not be
interfered with in any manner by the
present wharf, warehouses and tres
tles of the defendants. It is true the
witness Dalton says that owing to the
prevailing north winds in the winter
season it would be impossible to dock
a vessel at that point. The witnesses
for the defendants, however, deny that
there are any winds from that direc
tion which would interfere with the
landing of vessels at such a wharf. An
examination of the topography of the
surrounding country shows that that
particular portion of the bay is pro
tected by the projecting land to the
northeast from the influence of the
northerly winds. There is no proof *o
indicate that the defendants have any
difficulty in landing vessels at their
wharf during all seasons of the year,
nor does the record disclose anything,
nor do the premises suggest any rea
son why plaintiffs cannot have access
to deep water by the constructoin of
such a wharf. The evidence further
shows that for all present needs and
purposes of the plaintiffs it would not
be necessary for them to build a wharf
of such length, for they can easily bring
vessels around to the land side of the
northerly projection of the defendants’
wrharf and load or unload whatever ma
chinery or lumber they desire on a
short pier or wharf projecting from
Three Tree Point and on the land side
of the northerly projection of the de
fendants’ wharf.
The witness Dalton insists that, since
he is the owner of the upland, he has
a right of access to deep water naviga
tion in the most inexpensive manner
which the topography of the ground
will permit and, therefore, that he
should be entitled to wharf out direct
ly from Three Tree Point and should
be granted a mandatory injunction at
this time restraining the defendant^
from maintaining their trestles,
wharves and railroad in front of him.
But as before stated, the plaintiffs
should have insisted on such right be
fore the incurring of such expense a*
the evidence shows the construction ol
such improvements entailed upon the
defendants. Nor are the plaintiffs With
out a remedy, even though they didn ’1
act promptly in preventing the de
fendants from erecting structures in
front of said upland. They still have
an action for damages and, if it be
comes necessary for them, in the pros
ecution of the work on their mining
claims, to construct a wharf such as
has been heretofore indicated, there is
no apparent reason why they should
not, in any action for damages they
might see fit to institute against the de
fendants for injuring their right of ac
cess to navigable water, recover such
damages as will be sustained by them
in being compelled to erect a more ex
tensive wharf than would be necessary
had the defendants not built any struc
tures in front of their upland.
Nor does it appear that the plain
tiffs will suffer on account of the refus
al to grant the extraordinary remedy
prayed for. For the defendants, in the
first instance, had they seen fit, could
have by appropriate condemnation pro
ceedings cut off plaintiffs’ access from
deep water navigation by paying what
ever damages plaintiffs would sustain
by reason of any injury to such right
of access. The plaintiffs still have that
remedy if they can show their right of
access has been substantially interfer
ed with; but, as before stated, the ev
idence before the court in this case doei
not warrant the court in saying that
such access has been materially inter
fered with by the structures of the
defendants of which the plaintiffs com
plain.
After the taking of the testimony and
the submission of the cause to the
court, the court took the same under
advisement owing to the fact that the
judge who tried the cause desired to
view the premises in controversy be
fore rendering an opinion herein, and
immediately after taking said cause
under advisement on the 5th day of Ju
ly, 1911, the court entered an order re
quiring the defendants forthwith to
open a temporary roadway twenty
eight feet in width by the alteration of
their trestles in front of plaintiff’s log
haul and to permit plaintiffs to con
struct a creasing over the railway of
the defendants at a point east of the
last switch where such railway con
sists of a single track only. Such order
was granted however, for temporary
purposes only. After carefully review
ing the pleadings, evidence and the
premises, it is apparent that such or
der was not justified under the circum
stances, and that the court was without
power to enter the same. Let an order,
therefore, now be entered setting aside
and holding for naught the said order
by this court on the said 5th day of
July, 1911.
s The Sourdough, $3.00 a year.