FUR-SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 203 



vestigatiou? Why was it! — A. Because I would uot condemn a man 

 be was angry with. 



Q. Who was the man — A. Andiian Pliilemauoff. 



By Mr. Macdonald: 



Q. What do you mean by condemn ? — A. Because I would not fine 

 him. 



Q. Explain it a little clearer. Condemn him for what? — A. He was 

 charged with whipping his wife, and the case was brought before me. 

 1 saw it was a malicious persecution, because he would not permit his 

 wife to visit the company house. 



Q. You found him not guilty, and he was augiy because you so de- 

 cided? — A. Yes; and he tlireateued to strike me afterwards. 



By Mr. Felton : 



Q. It developed that he did not whip his wife ?— A. No, sir; he did 

 not. He refused to permit his wife to visit the company house. 



Q. He did not wliip her ? — A. He did not. 



Q. Y'ou mean to go to the company house ? — A. Y'es ; for immoral 

 purposes. 



By Mr. Jeffries : 



Q. He was charged with whipping his wife? — A. Yes, sir. 



Q. Who charged him?— A. Dr. Lutz. 



Q. He was the doctor in charge ? — A. Yes, sir. 



Q. There were witnesses, were there not ? Did Dr. Lutz testify ? — 

 A. No; he said he was told so, aud brought a witness. 



Q. Did the witness testifj^ that the man whipped his wife ? — A. No, 

 sir. 



Q. Was there any proof that he did ? — A. No, sir. 



Q. Then what happened ? — A. I dismissed him. 



Q. Was Dr. Lutz present at the trial and heard the witness swear 

 that the man did not whip his wife aud heard the evidence that showed 

 the man was innocent, and then he threatened to strilie you for dis- 

 charging him ? — A. He said that his witness did criminate this man 

 and I said that he did not, and so it was a conflict of opinion. 



Q. And there was a difference in judgment between you and Dr. Lutz 

 as to whether the testimony condemned the man or not and you got 

 into a dispute over it? — A. Yes, sir. Then after I dismissed this man 

 Mr. Webster called the num in aud said if he did not permit hi§ wife to 

 come down there he would break his head. 



Q. This dispute between you and Dr. Lutz was about the case of 

 this man and you grew warm over it? — A. Qe grew warm. 



_Q. Y^ou were ])erfectly cool. I can readily understand that, and he 

 was very angry and he was going to strike you, but he did not strike 

 you ? — A. No, sir ; but he shook a poker in my face. 



Q. He could not strike you ? — A. I do uot know. 



Q. You do uot know whether he could or uot. Was he within reach 

 of you ? 



The Witness. I think, Mr. Chairman, if there istobealawyer here, 

 that the witness should be permitted to bring a lawyer. This man 

 seems to be going over the ground as if he was there, and I do uot 

 think, sir, tli;)t he has this right. 



Mr. Jp^FFRiES. The committee will protect you if I ask any questions 

 that sliould not be asked. He did not strike you? 



The Witness. No, sir. 



