delegates to convention or tee Alaska
NATIVE BUOTII
RI{()()!), Angoon, November,
1 0 2 7.
iu rk\r< i. \TK xiiovi: im<; i,\\v
AVben the law contravenes iiv>
whims of the buric rats, they m>ice
effort to sweep the law aside. That
was made plain when Governor
Parks made effort to change the (V
gi »’C Act which prohibits specific
al'y the payment of Territorial funds
to a federal employee.
't is further evidenced in the
hushing up of game law violations
by the Brown Carpetbag.
It is made more pronounced when
residents are prosecuted and per
secuted for minor violations—the
same violations of carpetbaggers.
>\ United States Marshal can kill
or have killed for him any kind n.
deer or number of deer with im
punity; he can feed in a “federal
boarding house” but if the restuar
auhs or private boarding houses do
it, they must be prosecuted.
Justice be damned when the
machinery of the courts is perverted
to the personal benefit of imported
carpetbag Broken Arches who spend
Territorial tax monies for supplies
wholesale in Seattle because local
(dealers “charge too damned much ’
for their goods as did Mr. Browi.
w!v :i he purchased more t han $150.
worth from wholesalers in Seattle,
in ( lie lot last fall.
V. hen will it end. where and how,
is the question that Alaskans ask
win n they learn of all these too.
i rhdvs by professional imported
broken arch yuinshoers.
U'lXiK KILEK-IMMIGK\\T LAW
Tin* American Indian is a priv
leged persn, according to decision
made recently hy Federal Judg
Dickinson of Philadelphia in habeas
corpus proceeding- brought in behnk
of one Paul Diablo, in which hr
ruled Paul (an Indian) was not sub
joct to the immigration laws of th .
1 nited States, because—
“When the boundary line be
tween the United States and Cana
da was fixed, it was run in larg°
part through what may be termed
Indian territory, the right of occu
pancy of which was recognized b\
the contracting parties tobe in the
Indians.”
RENEWAL NOTES
An old gentleman of our ac
.'I uaintance gave his note to a coll
iding merchant who had been so
unfortunate as to give him credit.
When the note became due the mak
er was in his usual state of cheer
ful impecuniosity; and all that the
hinder could do was to take a re
newal. The new note was made
out; the old gentleman duly at
tached his name to it, and, as he
put the original note in his pocket
remarked, with feeling emphasis,
“Well,thank God, THAT’S paid.”
However, the question whether
the renewal of a note is payment
■ f it, sometimes becomes material.
Some irregularity may render the
new note void, in which case the
holder has to fall back on thhe or
dinal obligation, if he can. Hence
the numerous decisions on the ques
tion whether a renewal note dis
charges the original obligation or
indebtedness, which are collated in
52 A.L.R. 1416—1432.