the control and direction of the Secretary of the Interior and that
in view of the over-crowded condition it was the reasonable thing
to exclude her because she could attend this other school.
Conceding the right of Irene Jones to attend the territorial
schools, however, it cannot be contended that she should be depriv
ed of this right by reason of the fact that she had a right also to
attend the Indian school. As to over-crowding, the evidence before
the Court does not show that the Kechikan schools were over
crowded to such an extend as to warrant the exclusion of any child,
in the sixth grade from attendance., nor does it show that other
school room was not available or that funds were not available for
the hire of additional teachers to take charge of any over-crowd
ed condition in the Ketchikan schools.
Furthermore, it is stipulated by counsel that there were four
children living outside the corporate limits who w^ere in attendance
in the sixth grade at the time of the exclusion of Irene Jones. It
was argued that it was obligatory upon the school board to accept
these children by reason of Article 12, Chapter 97 of the Session
Lav/s of 1929 but the Court cannot so interpret this article. The
only other legislative provision pertinent to this matter is found
in Chapter 95 of the Session Laws of 1929, wherein it is said that:
“In addition to the refund above provided for, every such
city and school district v/hose public schools provide for the ed
ucation of children residing outside the corporate limits of such
city or school district and not provided with adequate school faci
lities at the place of their residence, a tuition fee of $9.50 per school
month or major fraction thereof and not to exceed thirty dollars
annually for each such pupil residing outside the corporate limits
of such city or school district but residing within the Territory,
shall be paid by the Territory to such city or school district from
funds therefore appropriated by the legislature.”
The words “whose public schools provide,” in the section above
quoted, indicate that the acceptance of these children is option
al with the city schools and not obligatory. For these reasons
the Court feels that any right children outside the corporate li
mits of the municipality might have to attend the city schools at
Ketchikan, if any right existed, must necessarily be secondary to
that of any child living within the corporate limits who has a
right to attend said schools.
It is therefore the opinion of the Court that the defendants
herein have failed to show cause v/hy they should not admit Irene
Jones to the public schools of Ketchikan and that the writ of
mandamus commanding them;so to do should be made absolute
Justin W. Harding
U. S. District Judge
FEROCIOUS BEAR
tell Bob that the marauder had
left only footprints to satisfy his
Returning to his camp with ajlunger> Were those of a bear
ravenous appetitie and alluringwhich goes to prove that “Goldi
visions of the “nose bag” after aj0cks” knew her porridge. Bob
hard tramp in the hills, Bob Ev- returned to Seward last night
ans, well known trapper, found an(j> when last seen, was wrestl
an absolute state of vacuumjng with a juicy steak in one of
where his food cache had been.^g local restuarants.—Seward
It needed no Sherlock Holmes to Gateway.
HABORING RIGHTS ON
B. C. COAST DISPUTED
-x
Rights and privileges of Cana
da and the United States in wa
ters in Dixon Entrance and He
cate Straits, B. C., where fisher
men of both nations have made
rich harvests with their catches
in the past, must be decided by
agreement of the governments
concerned, according to a state
ment from W. A. Found, deputy
Minister of Fisheries.
Canada, however, will insist
on the enforcement of the treaty
of 1818 in the matter of keeping
British Columbia coast ports free
Rom United States fishing ves
sels except when they put in ow
ing to bad weather or “for wood,
water, shelter or repairs,” as
specified in the treaty, Mr Found
said.
While the Seattle, Wash.,
Chamber of Commerce is report
ed to have sponsored the case of
the Washington and Oregon fish
ermen, who claim that they have
been driven from Canadian ports
when they sought shelter there
the department has made its de
cisions as to the interpi’etation
ot the meaning of “shelter” in
the treaty. Fishing.boats which
put into Canadian harbors, save
for the purposes named in the
international agreement, will be
ordered to sea or seized. Three
cf these vessels were seized last
year.
uanaaa, it is stated by the de
partment, has acted thus in ac
cordance with her understand
ing of a treaty designed to
protect her industry, ancl her
fishermen, and will continue to
give this same protection.
Under stress, of course, when
weather threatens, or when they
are in need of repairs, or fuel, or
provisions, United States fisher
men may seek Canadian harbor
shelter, but they will not be al
lowed to abuse their privilege.
—Canadian Fisherman.