Welcome to MontanaDawn.com
The publications and research of Catherine Holder Spude.

B. Moore Cross Exam.

The counsel for the protestants (J. C. Price, lawyer for the citizens of Skagway ) cross examined a series of the witnesses called by the claimants (Moore and the company). This cross-examination began on February 16 and continued throughout the hearing after each witness was called. However, the transcripts of the cross-examinations were filed and numbered after that of the original testimony in the townsite files. Bernard Moore was the first who underwent cross-examination; his testimony to Atty. Price makes it clear that the Alaskan and North Western Territories Trading Company had a pecuniary interest in their claim which arose from an initial $1,840 loaned to Moore, and their subsequent investment of "several thousands of dollars" as they payed for improvements to the sawmill and wharf.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF BERNARD MOORE,
FEBRUARY 16-18, 1898

 

-1-

               United States Land Office, Sitka, Alaska.

                                      February 16, 1898.

In the matter of the application of Bernard Moore for a patent to a trading and manufacturing site on Skaguay Bay, Alaska, being the lands embraced in U. S. Survey No. 13.

On this 16th day of February, 1898, appeared Bernard Moore with Witnesses to make final proof and entry before the Register and Surveyor General, before the offering of proof of A. J. Daly, appearing for J. G. Price et al, offers oral protest against the granting of the entry. Whereupon said applicant proceeded to offer his proof as follows:

First. Letter of the Honorable Commissioner of the General Land Office, dated March 25, 1897, approving the survey herein, which letter is now on file in the office of the surveyor-General, which is in the words and figures as follows:

"E.

A.F.D.   Department of the Interior,

           General Land Office,

            Washington, D.C.,   March 25, 1897.

The U.S. Marshal

Ex-officio Surveyor-General,

Sitka, Alaska.

Sir:

This office is in receipt of your letter dated March 4, 1897, transmitting the return of Alaska survey No. 13, executed by C.W. Garside, D.S., of a tract of land claimed by Bernard Moore for the purposes of trade and manufacture.

I reply you are informed that said returns have been examined and the survey found satisfactorily made. The same is hereby accepted and you are authorized to file the triplicate plat in the local land office.

Very respectfully,

Binger Hermann,

Commissioner.

-2-

Second. Application of the claimant for final entry on file in this office.

Third. Order of the register dated December 16, 1897, directing notice of publication to be published in the Skaguay News as required by regulation.

Fourth. Affidavit of the printer of said newspaper as to the publication of the notice as required.

Fifth. Certificate of admission to citizenship of claimant, issued by the United States, District Court of Alaska, and dated December l4, 1894.

Sixth. Origina1 notice of location of the tract of land herein by the claimant, made in 1888.

Seventh. Further notice of location of the lands claimed as a trading and manufacturing site, made by the applicant herein, July 3, 1896.

Eighth. As to said location notices, applicant also offers in evidence all the endorsements thereon including the certificate of the recorder showing time and place of record as to each.

Ninth. Estimate of the surveyor-general for field work on final survey, dated July 8, 1896.

Tenth. Estimate of the surveyor-general for office work on final survey, dated July 8, 1896.

Eleventh. Certificate of Deposit in triplicate of the First National Bank, Portland, Oregon, numbered 74 and dated July 17, 1896, showing deposit by claimant to the credit of the treasurer of the United States, for the sum of $400.00, pursuant to said estimates. All of which were received in evidence and placed on file, whereupon the applicant offered as a witness in behalf of the claimant Captain Malcolm Campbell, whose testimony having been heretofore in the form of an affidavit subscribed to writing was read before the register and sworn to.

-3-

and offered in evidence by the applicant, and received.

The applicant thereupon presents his own testimony heretofore reduced to writing, and the same, after having been read, was duly subscribed and sworn to by and before the register and offered in evidence, and received.

Hearing was thereupon adjourned until 1:30 o'clock p. m.

At the time and place adjourned to the hearing proceeded, and the testimony of C. W. Garside heretofore reduced to writing was read, after which the same was subscribed by him and sworn to before the register.

-4-

Counsel for protestant, J.G. Price et a1., objects to the attaching of the map mentioned in the affidavit of C. W. Garside, now offered by counsel for claimant, for the reason that the same is an unofficial map, and an attempt upon the part of claimant to substitute said map for the official survey approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and now on file in this office, or to supplement said official survey with said map.

In reply to the objection urged by the protestant the applicant states that the sole purpose of attaching to and making a part of the affidavit of said Garside the said map is to show by such map or tracing the improvements made by the applicant on said lands since the official survey for this patent was made.

Objection is overruled and testimony received, to which ruling counsel for protestant duly excepts.

Applicant then offered to read the testimony of J.T. Martin heretofore reduced to writing and the same was read after which it was subscribed by said witness and sworn to by him before the register and then offered and received in evidence.

Applicant then offered the Certificate of the register to the posting or the notice of publication in his notice in the manner and for the time required by the regulations.

Counsel for the protestant, Price et al, proceeded to cross examination of applicant's witnesses, and the applicant Bernard Moore was first sworn and exam1ned as follows:

Mr. Moore, you are familiar with how your claim is laid out, are you not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. The sides line of your claim are bounded on one side by the mountains, on the other by the Skaguay river and on the third by the waters of Lynn Canal, or Skaguay Bay?

A. Yes sir.

Q. On the other side Of Skaguay river from your claim are high mountains or hills?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Your claim is situated between two ranges of mountains or hills?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And occupies practically all level ground between two said ranges of mountains or hills?

A. No sir.

Q. How much of said level ground is unoccupied?

A. About 300 or 350 acres, probably more.

Q. Where are they situated? With reference to the official survey or plat?

A. Some of it is back to my claim and the rest of it is on the Dyea side of the river.

Q. How much level ground is on the other side of the Skaguay river running parallel with your claim?

A. Approximately, between fifty and seventy-five acres.

Q. How high are those ranges of mountains on either side of your claim?

A. They average from 300 to 6,000 feet.

-5-

Beginning at the meandering lines of your claim you claim all of t the valley land between those ranges except the forty or fifty acres that you just spoke of as being across the river? I mean back as far as your back line.

A. Yes.

Q. This valley you speak of leads up to the White Pass?

A. Yes sir.

Q. One of the entrances in the mountains to the Interior?

A. It is now.

Q. Across your 1and, Mr. Moore, now extends the Skaguay Trail leading to the White Pass?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What bounds your claim on your back line?

A. The Geo. Buchannan c1aim.

Q. This Geo. Buchannan was employed at the saw mill on your grounds?

A. He was employed by me.

Q. During the tam he was claiming this ground?

A. Yes.

Q. In your affidavit, Mr. Moore, you say that you have been continuously in the occupancy of your claim for the past ten years?

A. Yea sir.

Q. How long have you actually lived on the ground?

A. I have been on the land for over two years now, and during other years when I was away from there I sent my father there to do work and employ men.

Q. How long was you there of the other 8 years?

A. I was there 2 or 3 months out of every year and when my father was there.

Q. During those 8 years was your father a subject of Great Britain and Ireland?

A. He had his Declaration of Intention papers a portion of that time, Think he took out his first papers four or five years ago.

-6-

Did you ever continuously 1ive a whole year of those eight years upon your claim?

A. No sir.  

Q. Were there not periods of time at which neither yourself nor your father was there?

A. There might be a portion of one or two years when neither my father nor I was there.

Q. About What time was that?

A. I think the year 1889 and probably 1890.

Q. Were there not periods of time extending over some months during the years 1891 to 1895 when neither you nor your father were upon the claim, nor anyone else represent­ing you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. When was the first time you went upon this claim for the purposes of location?

A. I done my first work there in the fall of 87.

Q. What was the nature of the work?

A. I was clearing some land, cutting some timber, putting in cribs for wharf and work like that.

Q. You made your location in 1888 for agricultural purposes?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long did you so use it for agricultural purposes?

A. I have used it off and on for that purpose, growed [sic] vegetables there in 1888. I wasn’t there in ‘89, whether or not my father was there I can't remember. In '90 I cleared some ground and cut some logs. In '91 my father was on the place part of the time, also in '92 and 93 he was up there working on the place. He sent some In­dians there to do some work on a foundation for a boarding house. I think I was there during the summer of '94 doing some work. In '95 I went in there early in the spring and stayed there for 2 months and a half and laid some foundations. On Feb.2, 1898,

-7-

I went there and took a man with me, cut some timber down, and cut about a mile of trail. Done some clearing and done some improve­ments to my old house. Had this man working for me there for about a month, with the exception or a few weeks, I have been continuously on the place ever since working and making improvements.

Q. You knew of the existence of the White Pass being a favorable entrance into the Interior before the year 1887?

A. I can’t say that I knew it was favorable because I never was over the Pass.

Q. You knew of there being such a Pass at that t1me?

A. I knew that there was a Pass through the mountains into the Yukon, I had heard that there was.

Q. Your father had been over it, had he not?

A. My father was over the Pass but I forget the date, think it was prior to '87.

Q. When you took up that land in 1888, did you take it up for the bona fide purpose of agriculture?

A. Yes.

Q. This valley that you have spoken or, in the former part of your testimony, is the only practicable route to the White Pass?

A. Yes sir, you can let to the White Pass without touching our land at all by going up on the left hand side of the river.

Q. Over those 50 or 75 acres you spoke of?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Are there any facilities for a wharf which would not be upon your land?

A. Yes, good facilities.

Q. How long did you regard your claim as an agricu1tural claim?

A. I had it re-surveyed for a trading and manufacturing site in '96.

Q. Up to that time, '96, you had regarded your claim as an agricultural claim?

A. That is what it was taken up for originally.

-8-

Q. How did you regard it?

A. I regarded it as my home.

Q. The whole 160 acres?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you take up the claim because of the value the same might have as an approach to the White Pass?

A. Not particularly.

Q. How much did it enter into your calculations?

A. I thought someday men would be going through there and doing business. I intended to raise some stock and perhaps send some beef inside to the interior and carry on business like that.

Q. Did you ever send any cattle into the Yukon?

A. No sir, not yet.

Q. What decided you in the year '96 to change your agricultural claim into a trading and manufacturing site?

A. I deeded to do it, because it was to my benefit to do it.

Q. You thought it would help you to get patent to the 160 acres, that you could better get patent for it in that way than an agricultural site?

A. Yes, that had some bearing on it.

Q. What did you manufacture during the year 1896?

A. I had'nt got to manufacturing anything at that time.

Q. What kind of trading were you engaged in?

A. I had some supplies and provisions, sold some but not a great deal.

Q. How much did you sell?

A. I don't exactly remember, possibly $76. Or $100 worth.

Q. Your place was not known as a trading post was it?

A. I don't know that it was.

Q. Did you regard it as a trading post?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you have this barb wire fence for, running from the moun­tain on one side to the river on the other? As an inducement to trade?

 

-9-

A. I had the fence to enclose my property, eventually to enclose the whole thing.

Q. You wanted to keep people off, didn’t you?

A. No, I wanted to see some people come there to do business with me, but I didn’t want them to take the whole place away from me.

Q. What amount of provisions and supplies did you have with you on your claim during the year 1898?

A. In the spring of 1896, I went up there with supplies amounting to $250 or $300 including provisions and other supplies.

Q. You and your wife lived out of those supplies and provisions?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Now didn't you have that stock of supplies and provisions primarily for your own purpose and use?

A. I used from it and also sold some of it. I can use my own grub if I want to.

Q. Did you have counters and conveniences tor carrying on a business?

A. I had boxes, did not rig up very fine.

Q. That little trading was done in the log house marked so on the plat?

A. Yes, sir. Myself and wife and two children also lived in it.

Q. What are the dimensions of that building?

A. About 15 x 17 ft.

Q. Did you look upon that trading as your means of livelihood?

A. Partly, not altogether.

Q. What was your other source of 1ivlihood?

A. Done a little business in boating, sometimes running between there and Dyea, and landing passengers off and on.

Q. You are not a man of means?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Were you such in 1896?

A. Yes, I had some money.

Q. Is it not a fact that you bought the greater portion of your supplies during the year 1896 from the trading dost of Healy and Wilson, at Dyea?

-10-

A. I bought some things that if was short on from them.

Q. How much of a stock of supplies, and provisions did you buy from them during the year 1896?

A. Well it might range up to $40 or $50. I think less than that.

Proceedings were then adjourned until the following day at 10 o’clock a.m.

The cross examination was recommenced at 11 a.m. February 17, 1898, before the Register and Surveyor General.

Q. You spoke of having been off of the claim, at times for the pur­pose of working, what kind of work did you engage in?

A. I engaged in boating, fishing and the sawmill business.

Q. What would be your average dally compensation for that kind of work when employed?

A. Ranging from 4 to 8 and 10 dollars per day.

Q. About how many days in the year would you be so employed, up to and, including the year 1896? 

A. Probably about one third of the time. Not including the whole of 1896. Early in May, 1896, I had landed on my place on the “Seaolin” a quantity of goods, consisting of merchandise, tools, rope and hardware, to the extent of some $500 or so, and on or about the 6th of July, I had towed to Skaguay ten tons of freight in my schooner, by the steamer “Rustler,” which also had on board some horses, about 6 thousand feet of lumber and some feed. I also put three men to work on the place besides myself. In August I had some more supplies come up, including a wagon; and in November of the same year,'96, the “Rustler” landed another quantity out lumber, feed and some merchandise. During the fall, previous to November, I had built a large floating dock 33 x 60 ft., and did some clearing, cut some piles and built some bunk houses. The piles were for our dock and some of them to build a float with. After which I paid off my men and they went below for the winter and I remained there with my family. During the winter I had

-11-

supplies come up when there was a chance for transportation between Juneau and Skaguay.

Q. You recollect more about the year ‘96 today than you did yesterday, don't you?

A. No, not particularly. What I said yesterday I understood was in answer to your question with reference to the spring of '96.

Q. You are not engaged in another enterprise in the "district of Alaska, other than occupying this claim? Or have not done since the year 1887?

A. That has formed the principal part of my occupation. I had to get out and rustle to make some money.

Q. You were not in the district of Alaska during the month or June, 1896, were you?

A. Certain1y, I was.

Proceedings were then adjourned until 1 o’clock p.m.

The cross examination was recommenced at 1 o'clock p.m.

Q. Up to and including the year 1896, what were the annual profits or your agricultural business and trading?

A. With reference to the agricultural, just what I raised I used myself. Trade amounted to but very little, forget just what it amounted to.

Q.  Had you raised a crop every year since 1887?

A. No.

Q. What did you raise, how much ground did you cultivate and how many years did you raise a crop?

A. I raised some potatoes, I dug up a small patch around my house, the summer of '88.

Q. Do you know one E.E. Billinghurst of Victoria, B.C.?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long have you been acquainted with him?

A. Two or three years.

Q. Did you have dealings and business with him in and around the month June, 1896, with reference to this claim?

A. Yes sir.

-12-

Q. State what they were.

Counsel for the applicant requests the Land Officers to summarily put a stop to the question asked above for the reasons: First. That it is obviously irrelevant in the matters now pending before said officers, and second, if any transactions between the said Billinghurst and the applicant are proper subjects of investigation at all, they must be heard under the protests of the said Price et als [sic], represented by Mr. Daly, which said protests are now on file. This objection is made under the closing sentence of rule no. 41 governing the practices in Land Offices, which reads as follows: “Officers taking testimony will, however, summarily put a stop to obviously irrelevant questioning.”

The decision of the Land Officers is that the objection is over­ruled on account of the provisions or Rule 37, Rules of Practice. Counsel for claimant excepts to the ruling of the said Officers.

A. I have some business dealings with him relative to getting some money to improve my property.

Q. Didn't you have money of your own to improve the property?

A. I had some.

Q.  You had enough ground at that time to conduct what little trading business you were doing without trying to get patent to the whole 160 acres, did you not?

A. I wanted patent for the 160 acres because I had taken it up in the first place.

Q.  It was not then because you needed it tor trading and manufacturing purposes at that time, in 1896?

A. It was.

Q. For the trading that you were engaged in in '96?

A. Yes sir.

-13-

Q. Why did you need the whole 160 acres?

A. I needed it to get timber there, and because I had taken it up expecting some day to enlarge my business.

Q. If you had money in 1896 how did you come to make these business relations with Billinghurst?

A. I had some money but needed [a] little more to improve my property and borrowed some.

Q. Did you enter into a written agreement some time in June, 1896, with Billinghurst?

A. Yes sir, there was an instrument drawn up between us relative to some business matters.

Q. In this agreement did you agree to execute and deliver to Billing­hurst a mortgage in fee simple creating a lien on your land?

Objeoted to by counsel irrelevant and should be summarily excluded.

Objection sustained, for the reason that it appears that a written contract is in existence; the same not being in ev­idence before this Office, any inquiries as to its contents are irrelevant, but leave is granted the contestant to introduce the written instrument. Counsel for protestants except to the ruling.

Counsel reads certified copy of agreement dated __ day of June, 1896, between Bernard Moore, William Moore and E.E. Billinghurst, together with the certificate of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District  of Alaska, ex officio Recorder for the District of Alaska, being “Exhibit C” of the protest of J.G. Price et al, which is as follows:

-[14]-

AGREEMENT.

“Memorandum of agreement made and entered into this _, day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six between Bernard Moore of Skaguay in the Territory of Alaska, of the first part, William Moore of the city of Victoria, in the province of British Columbia of the second part, and E. E. Billinghurst of the city of Victoria aforesaid, Trustee for certain undisclosed principals of the 3rd part.

Whereas the said Bernard Moore has for a period of about eight years last put been a squatter on one hundred and sixty acres of land more or less situate at Skagua Bay at the head of Lynn Inlet in the Territory of Alaska and has also been in occupation of the water frontage of land adjoining and has used the same as a steamboat landing and for other purposes and still uses that portion of the wharf built by him on the said water frontage whish has not heretofore been washed away and is desirous of obtaining a government patent or other absolute title for the said land and water frontage and to rebuild and extend his wharf and wharfage accommodations on the water front aforesaid and for the consideration hereinafter appearing has agreed with the said Ernest Edward Billinghurst to execute these presents, now this agreement Witnesseth that for and in consideration of the sum of Eighteen hundred and forty-eight dollars paid by the said Ernest Edward Billinghurst as such trustee as aforesaid on account of the said Bernard Moore as he doth hereby admit, they the said parties hereto agree together as follows, viz:

That he the said Bernard Moore will proceed forthwith to take all steps necessary or required by the American law having force in the Territory of Alaska to have the said lands and water frontage and privileges surveyed and a Government Patent or other deed in fee simple issued therefor to him the said Bernard Moore;

That he will on demand forthwith after the issue of such patent or other deed make, execute and deliver to the said Ernest Edward Billinghurst as such trustee as aforesaid a mortgage in fee simple to secure payment of all sum and sums of money heretofore or hereafter advanced to or on account of the said Bernard Moore by the said Ernest Edward Billinghurst or other person or persons for whom he is acting and further in the meantime and until the execution of such mortgage as aforesaid he the said Bernard Moore doth hereby charge and create a lien on the land and water frontage and privileges and all his right title and interest therein and thereto for all monies for this time being paid or advanced, as aforesaid to or on account of the said Bernard Moore.

That all costs and expenses incurred by the said Ernest Edward Billinghurst as such trustee as aforesaid in connection with or in anywise relating to the obtaining of title to the said lands and water frontage or privileges including survey fees, official fees, traveling expenses, counsel and solicitor's fees and reasonable remuneration to the said Ernest Edward Billinghurst for his time in connection with the subject matter of this agreement and all other necessary and incidental expanses shall be included in the aforesaid mortgage and charge or lien on the said land and water frontage and privileges and be eventually paid by the said Bernard Moore.

And it is hereby further agreed by and between the said parties hereto that in lien of accepting repayment for all such monies as aforesaid as hereinafter provided the said Ernest Edward Billinghurst as such trustee as aforesaid shall if he so desires be entitled at any time after south patent or other deed as aforesaid shall have been issued to demand and receive and absolute conveyance of an undivided one-half interest in the said land and water frontage and privileges with all improvements

-15-

thereon. And the said Bernard Moore hereby agrees to execute and deliver such conveyance as aforesaid on demand but at the cost of the said Ernest Edward Bill1nghurst.

And this agreement further Witnesseth that for the considerations aforesaid they the said parties hereto of the first and second parts do hereby for themselves and each of them doth hereby for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators covenant with the said party hereto of the third part, his heirs, executors and administrators, that they or one of them will well and truly on demand pay to the said party to the third part, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, the sum of eighteen hundred and forty-eight dollars together with all sum and sums of money (if any) mentioned in the schedule hereto and all other monies which the said party hereto Of the third part as such trustee as aforesaid shall hereafter advance or pay for the use or on account of the said party of the first part or in any way disburse by reason of or on amount of obtaining title to the said land and water frontage and privileges and all costs and expenses incurred by the said party of the third part in connection there­with.

In Witness Whereof the said parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and Delivered by Bernard Moore L.S. the said parties in the presence of E.E. Billinghurst L.S. Jay Allen as to Bernard Moore and E.E. Billinghurst.

United States, District of Alaska, ss.

This certifies that on this 29th,day of June, A.D.1896, before me, the undersigned a United states Commissioner in and for the said District, personally appeared Bernard Moore and E.E. Billing­hurst, the within named persons who are known to me to be the identical persons desoribed in and who executed the same, freely, and voluntarily, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.

In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal, the 29th day of June, 1896.

(L.S.)    H.W. Mellen,

     U.S. Commissioner for Alaska, residing at Juneau.

Filed for record this 8th day of July, l896, at 1 o’clock p.m.

Charles D. Rogers,

Ex-officio Recorder, District of Alaska.

United States,

     ss.

District of Alaska.      

I, Albert D. Elliot, Clerk of the United States District Court for the District  of Alaska, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of an Agreement as fully as the same appears of record in Book "B”, Miscellaneous Records, page 11, at my office and in my custody.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said court at Sitka in said District this 6th day of October A.D. 1897.

(L.S.)

Albert D. Elliot, Clerk.

-16-

Q. Is that the agreement which you entered into with Mr. Billinghurst?

A. I believe that is a copy of it.

Q. Have you in pursuance of the terms of this agreement made and delivered to Billinghurst, for himself or as trustee, a mortgage in fee simple on said claim which mortgage is a lien on the claim?

A. I don’t remember of making a mortgage, think I did not.

Q. Do you know whether Mr. E. E. Billinghurst, atoning for himself or as trustee, or any other person or corporations, have any lien, encumbrance or charge upon your claim at this time?

A. No sir.

Q. Have they had at any time since the date of your application to the present time?

A. No sir.

Q. Hasn’t Mr. Billinghurst any collateral for the money advanced you? Other than this agreement? Affecting, this land?

A. No sir.

Q. Is this agreement still in force?

A. Yes, it has never been struck out or anything.

Q. Then if you obtain patent to this land and are not able to reimburse Mr. Billinghurst the $1800 and other moneys advanced, you stand ready and willing to deed him as trustee an undivided one-half in­terest in your claim and water frontage?

A. Not necessarily, I could raise the money elsewhere and pay it off.

Q. How much money as Billinghurst advanced you, whether for himself or as trustee?

A. He has advanced some thousands [of] dollars.

Q. You don't know how much, then?

A. I could know by referring to notes, but can’t tell right here what it amounts to.

Q. Can't you approximate it?

A. Several thousand dollars.

Q. Did you pay for the preliminary work of making the survey? Making application before the Land Office, etc?

-17-

In the attempt to prove up on your claim?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did not Mr. Billinghurst also aid you in attempting to prove up on your claim?

A. He assisted me financially.

Q. Did he not hire your present attorneys and make arrangements with them?

A. He had something to do with that but I suggested Judge Delaney myself.

Q. Mr. Billinghurst has had a large share with you in all these proceedings before the Land Office?

A. Yes he was somewhat interested in it, but hasn't had a large share that I know of.

Q. He helped to gather these witnesses that have appeared before the land office, and accompanied you to Sitka?

A. I gathered my own witnesses myself. He came to Sitka with us on his way to Juneau.

Q. He takes a lively interest in these proceedings, does he not?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. Do you know what country Mr. Billinghurst is a citizens of?

A. I don't know.

Q. Where does he make his home?

A. He is traveling a great deal, I believe he resides most of the time in British Columbia.

Q. Was not Mr. Billinghurst present when the official survey was made?

A. I believe he was, he came up there on a trip on the “Mayf1ower.”

Q. Have you ever been paid any wages by Mr. Billinghurst?

A. No sir, I paid myself.

Q. Have you been in the employ of anyone during the last two years?

A. I was for period of 5 or 6 weeks. I took the mail into the Yukon and was gone a few weeks.

-18-

Q. Are you now in the employ of any person or corporation whatsoever?

A. No, I am working for myself.

Q. Have you not testified in a trial had before Judge Smith at Skaguay in the latter part of January or first part of February, this year, at his court room in Skaguay, Alaska, at the trial of the cause of Charles Sperry as admr. of Geo. Buchannan, deceased v. Phillip King that you had been in the employ of the Alaskan and North West Territory Co. within the year.

A. I don't' remember that I said I was. I said that I was working on that house there.

Q. Are you the full owner of the saw mill upon your claim, mentioned in your affidavit?

A. I consider that I am.

Q. Is it not now, or very recently been, operated by the Alaskan and North West Territory Trading Co., or by any company?

A. It was operated under the management of a Mr. Hill.

Q. It was not operated any company then?

A. Mr. Hill was the manager and the Alaska and North West Territory Trading Company had something to do with it.

Q. Now just what have they got to do with that saw mill?

A. They are interested in it.

Q. Well, how much and in what way?

A. The saw mill is a part of the improvements put on my land with the money that I borrowed. They are interested in this way, part of the money that I borrowed is into that mill, and it is partly under my management too.

Q. Do you claim to be the owner of the saw mill in Skaguay, Alaska?

A. I do, yes.

Q. Do not the bills for lumber purchased at the mill have the heading Alaskan and Northwestern Territories Trading Company?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Does your name appear upon any of the stationery used at the mill?

-19-

A. No, not my name.

Q. What name is used?

A. I believe that Mr. Hill’s name is mentioned on the bills.

Q. Is not Mr. Hill a manager of the company named above?

A. He is under their instructions, also mine too.

Q. Is that the only manufacturing building on the claim?

A. It is at present, with the exception of a dairy.

Q. The dairy business is carried on within that 5 acre enclosure, is it not?

A. Yes, I was compelled to put the cattle in there to keep them from getting chopped up by jumpers.

Q. Have not the citizens of Skaguay aided you in keeping jumpers off of those five acres?

A. No sir. They have not only not helped me to keep them off, but they have tried to take the whole place away from me.

Q. Are you engaged in any trading on the place?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. General store, teaming, buying and selling grain.

Q. How large is your store?

A. Somewhere between 16 [and] 18 ft., I don't know exactly. One story.

Q. That's run in connection with the saw mill is it not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you know where this trading company spoken of previously has been organized? The Alaskan and North Western Territories Trading Co.?

A. I don't exactly remember, I think it was organized in New York.

Q. Do you know who compose the company?

A. I know some of them.

Q. State who they are and their places of residence.

Objected to by counsel for claimant and asks that the question be summarily excluded on the ground that the Articles of Incorporation

-20-

if it be a corporation, or the articles or co-partnership if it be a partnership are the best evidenced.

Question withdrawn.

Q. Is Mr. E.E. Billinghurst a member of this corporation?

A. No, sir. I think not.

Q. Is he a representative of the company or interested with them in any way?

A. Yes, he is.

Q. In what capacity?

A. He takes a trip up and down once in a while to see how things are getting along.

Q. What were the nature or the business or transitions had with the

A.&N.W.T.T.Co., with reference to your claim?

A. They were to receive a share of the profits of the business carried on on the place.

Q. They were to put up the money for the improvements, conduct the business and you were to receive a share, was that the nature or your agreement?

A. They put up some money. My father and I conducted the business. Yes, certainly, I receive a share.

Q. How much of a share?

Question excluded by the Land Officers as irrelevant. Exception taken by counsel for protestants.

Q. What, it any benefits, are being enjoyed at this time by the Alaskan and North Western Territories Trading Co., from this sawmill and business on your claim?

A. They receive a certain amount of the profits of the business carried on.

Q. How much of the benefits?

A. The profits so far have been expended on further improvements, there have been no dividends yet.

-21-

Q. Do they retain an interest in the improvements made on the claim by the dividends in the business?

A. Yes, I expect to repay them some day the money I have borrowed and clear it off.

Q. Then the company does now have some interest, charge, lien or encumbrance upon your claim?

A. They consider the money that I have borrowed an encumbrance.

Q. With what representative of the company did you make your arrange­ments with?

A. Mr. Billinghurst.

Q. How much money has Mr. Billinghurst, or this company, extended on this land for or on your behalf?

A. Several thousand dollars.

Q. How much money have you individually expended upon your claim irrespective of borrowed money?

A. Several thousand dollars.

Q. Did you have a conversation with one McComb, or any other person, on or about the 20th day of August, 1897, in which you stated you would place him on a lot, which lot would be included within the limits of your claim; that the company was not doing right by you, and that unless they were going to put up more money, you would have nothing more to do with them or words to that effect?

Counsel for the applicant objects to the question.

Objection is sustained. Officers hold that the question is irrelevant. Exception by attorney for protestants.

Q. When did you make your application for a patent to this claim?

Objection by counsel for claimant as irrelevant.

Objection sustained. Exception of counsel for protestants.

Q. About what time did people first come to Skaguay and settle upon your claim?

A. About the last of July or first of August, 1897.

Hearing adjourned until 10 o'clock a.m. following day.

-22-

Hearing was recommenced at 9 o’clock a.m. February 18, 1898. Same persons present as yesterday and Mr. Moore on the stand.

Q. At that time, Mr. Moore, what improvements did you have upon your claim?

A. I had a house in which I live, a log house, and a story and a half bunk house, also another house in which my father lived. I had a number of acres of clearing. Also a line of fencing across the front part of my land, and good, substantial posts set in the ground with rails on part of it. Most of the wharf was completed. About 200 piles out. Skid roads leading up into the timber on different parts of the land. One stable. Also had 13 head of horses, 9 head of cattle including a bull, 10 head of goats. I don't remember whether or not the goats were there at that time. 3 pigs and large lot of poultry. Also a 12 ft. wagon road running through my land. Also wagons and sleighs and a number of other things. Bridges over parts of the creeks and rivers. My schooner was there too. That’s about the most of it. Also the store building was there, including a stock of merchandise. The sawmill was there, and one log house uncompleted, and two smaller log cabins in which some of the men were living. Part of the fencing was up around my enclosure where I now live.

Q. Was the saw mill completed at that time and running?

A. The building was not all completed, it was under construction.

Q. When did it first begin to run?

A. I think it was some time about the latter part of July or the fore part of August, I don't remember exactly. It might have been sooner or it might have been a little later.

Q. What is the capacity of the mill?

A. About fifteen thousand feet per day.

Q. How much of the ground was then cleared? 

A. Around the vicinity of the bunk house there was about 13 acres or so, and then back in the timber at the junction of these skid roads there was different clearings amounting altogether to say 6 or 8 acres. This is where we cut timber and piles.

-23-

Q. What was the value of your improvements at that time?

A. I couldn't tell exactly right now; it was several thousand dollars.

Q. What was the annual value of the trade or business conducted upon your land at that time?

A. Including the teaming and store it amounted to about $6,500 per mo.

Q. How much land were you actually occupying with your improvements at that time?

A. Was occupying all the way from 60 to 75 acres, teaming, hauling piles and the store. And the cattle and horses were running on the pasture.

Q. You have said that only 16 or 17 acres were cleared. How were you occupying more than that, the uncleared port1on of your 60 or 70 acres?

A. I was hauling timber out of the woods. We had to occupy more than was actually cleared in order to get timber out of the woods. I have been with the teams myself up to the back lines of our survey after piles, helped to cut them.

Q. Have not the people who have gone upon your claim organized them­selves into a town or community?

Counsel for claimant objects, as being irrelevant.

Objection sustained, counsel for protestants excepts to ruling.

Q. What have the people done who went upon your claim at that time with reference to laying out streets and alleys and making improvements?

Counsels tor claimant objects as being irrelevant and asks that it be summarily excluded.

Counsel for protestants offers to deduce by this cross examination improvements made by other people upon his claim and occupancy by other people prior to the time of making his application to this Land Office for a patent.

Objections is sustained. The line of examination does not bear upon the improvements put there by the applicant and as his own

-24-

improvements are the subject matter of his affidavit, questions as to the improvement put there by others is irrelevant matter at this time.

Counsel for protestants excepts to the ruling.

Q. What are the character and value of the improvements on your claim other than those claimed by yourself?

Same objection by counsel for claimant.

Counsel for protestant offers to deduce from this witness by this line of cross-exnm1nation that large improvements of great and vast value have been placed upon his claim by persons other than himself holding adversely to him.

Same ruling by Land Officers as before; for same reasons objection is sustained. Attorney for protestants exempts to ruling.

Q. How much of the land claimed by you is now in the possession and occupancy of others adversely to you?

Same objections by attorney for claimant as before. Objection is withdrawn.

A. Practically all except 7 or 8 acres.

Q. Do you know Joseph Field? Did not Field at the time you made your application and for some time prior to that time claim a portion of your claim for himself and have the same fenced in?

A. No sir.

Q. Did not this man Field place some improvements within the limits of your claim?

A. No sir.

Q. Is not a portion of your claim occupied by United States Custom Officers?

A.  No sir. There is some officers living in some houses up there.

Q. Is not the U.S. Customs House Offioe in the Burkhart House upon the land of your claim?

A. Yes.

-25-

Counsel for the app1icant asks the Board to direct a further examination of the witness upon the new matter brought out upon cross examination, such examination to be conducted by such counsel or the members of the Board in the discretion of the latter. Counsel for protestant objects to counsel for plaintiff conducting the re-examination of the claimant for the reason that he has already filed the affidavit of the claimant; that there is no Rule of Practice, or no Ru1e or Regulation under the Act of March 3, 1891, allowing such procedure; that no new matter has been deduced by counsel for protestant that did not go into the good faith of the applicant's claim, and that full opportunity was then given him to explain any and all transactions had with reference to his claim and due opportunity was then given to the Board of Land Officers to inquire into such matters of their own motion. And that further, that an examination at this time would be unfair as claimant now has the opportunity of bolstering up his evidence formerly given with reference to his claim.

The ruling or the Board is that the applicant will be allowed the opportunity to rebut any such testimony as may have been brought out relative to financial transaction a with E.E. Billinghurst or others by the protestants' counsel in his cross examination of the witness. This rebuttal examination to be conducted under the direction of the Board. Counsel for protestants excepts to the ruling. Whereupon the examination proceeded as follows:

Q. Has Mr. E.E. Billinghurst any right, title, interest or lien in and to the lands comprising your claim or any portion thereof other than such as is set out in your agreement with him of June, 1896?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you ever made, executed or delivered to the said Billinghurst, or any other person, any deed or instrument in writing conveying to said Billinghurst or other person any right, title or interest in and to the lands comprising your claim or any portion thereof?

A. No sir.

-26-

Q. Have you ever made, executed, or delivered to said Billinghurst or any other person any mortgage creating any lien or encumbrance on the lands within the limits of your claim or any portion thereof, except that agreement of June, l896?

Counsel for protestant objects to this line of exam1nation as this ground was fairly gone over on the cross-examination, of the claimant and full opportunity was given him at that time to explain such transitions; further, the said exam1nation is not confined to the financial transactions had with E.E. Billinghurst under the ruling of this Land Office.

Objection is over-ruled by the Land Officers. Counsel for protestant excepts.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever made any agreement either written or oral with the said Billinghurst, or any other person, agreeing to transfer or convey the lands within the limits of your claim, or creating any lien, mortgage or encumbrance thereon, except the agreement of June, 1896?

A. No.

Q. Was the land in this case taken up by you and is this entry being made for the use and benefit of E.E. Billinghurst, or any person, other than yourself?

A. No. I took it up for myself. 

Q. Is the Alaskan and North Western Territories Trading Company a foreign or American corporation?

A. It is an Amerioan corporation.

Q. Under the laws of what state is it incorporated?

A. Under the laws of the state of W. Va.

Q. Where was the corporation formed, that is, founded?

A. In N.Y. in the state of N.Y.

Q. When was it incorporated?

A. October 29, 1896.

-27-

Q. Is this entry being made for the benefit of the Alaska and North Western Territories Trading Co., or that of any other association, corporation or company?

A. No.

Q. Has the Alaskan and North Western Territories Trading Company any interest in the lands included with your claim? Or any portion thereof?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever made, executed or delivered any deed or instrument in writing conveying to the said corporation or to any other corporation, company, or association any right, title or interest in the lands comprising your claim or any portion thereof?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever made, executed or delivered any mortgage or other instrument in writing creating any lien or encumbrance in favor of the said corporation or any other company, corporation or associa­tion, upon the lands comprising your claim or any portion thereof?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever made any agreement, oral or verbal, with the said corporation, or any other company, corporation or association whereby you were to convey, or mortgage, or create a lien upon or to the lands comprising your claim, or any portion thereof?

A. No.

Q. Are you an officer, agent, servant, or employee, of the Alaskan and North Western Territories Trading Co.?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever located or claimed any government lands as a trading and manufacturing site, in Alaska, except the one here either for yourself or anybody else?

A. No.

Q. Has the Alaskan and North Western Territories Trading Co., any other or further interest in connection with your claim than a share in the business of operating the saw mill and carry on the trading

-28-

post?

Counsel for protestant objects, to this question as being leading and suggestive, that the same question was asked claimant on the cross-examination by the counsel for the protestant in the form of  "What was the nature of the business or transactions had with the Alaskan and North Western Territories Trading Com­pany with reference to your claim?” which with other questions tended to fully inquire into relations had by said claimant with said company and a full, fair opportunity was then given to him to explain in his own way and manner and in his own words such relationship; that counsel for the claimant by this question and questions previously asked has been putting words into the mouth of this claimant which he has answered simply in the affirmative or negative; and this line of examination now being had is simply to bolster and supplement the proof heretofore offered.

Objection is over-ruled. Counsel for protestant excepts.

A. No sir.

Q. (By the Register) You stated that quite an amount of improvements were placed upon the land since the arrangement with the Alaskan and North Western Territories Trading Co., part of which were paid out of the profits arising from the saw mill business; did that give to the said company any interest in the improvements other than those connected with the saw mill?

A. No sir, with the exception of the wharf. They are interested in the profits of the wharf.

Q. Did they thereby acquire an interest in the wharf as a property?

A. No.

Counsel for the protestant asks at this time the opportunity of inquiring just what business transactions Mr. Moore had with E.E.  Billinghurst, the Alaskan and North Western Territories Trading

Company, or other persons, or corporation, with reference to the

-29-

land embraced within the l1mts of his claim, and what relationship now exists between h1m, Billinghurst and said company.

Objection to by the counsel for the claimant on the ground that the matter has been gone over by the cross-examination and the exam­ination allowed by the Board.

Objection is sustained for the reason that the business relations have been shown by the agreement introduced by the protestants’ counsel, and that the claimant has stated upon oath that there is no other mortgage, deed, lien, contract, or agreement, written or verbal, between himself and any other person, association, or corporation except the above mentioned agreement, which he admits. Counsel for protestants excepts to said ruling.

Counsel for the protestants now asks the opportunity to re-cross examine claimant as to new matter brought out upon direct examina­tion by the claimant by his counsel as to liens, encumbrances and charges upon the land embraced within the claimants claim.

Objected by the claimants’ counsel for the reason that it appears that the matter has already been gone over.

Objection is sustained.

Exception by the protestants' counsel.

[Signed] J. Bernard Moore

I hereby certify that the foregoing testimony was by me read and corrected in the presence of the witness, and that it was then subscribed to by him at my office in Sitka, Alaska, this 18th day of February, 1898.

[Signed] John W. Dudley, Register

Hearing was thereupon adjourned until [missing] p. m.


Website Builder