The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-11-10
SEIZUREOF THESAYWARD
THE CASE NOW UP BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT.

A Brilliant Array of Counsel to Take
Part in the Argument-A Review of
the story-Calderon Carlisle Opens
the Argument for the Sealer-Solic-
itor General Taft Follows.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9.-The United
States supreme court chamber was crowded
this morning with distinguished members
of the bar present to hear the arguments In
the case Of Thomas Henry Cooper against
the judge of the United States court for the
district of Alaska, better known as the
Sayward Bering sea sealer's case. Ex-
Secretary Bayard and ex-Attorney General
Garland of President Cleveland's cabinet,
ex-senator EdmunGs, Senator Mitchell OF
Oregon, Representatives Springer of Illinois.
Gen. Taft. Joseph H. Choate of New York
aud others, who will take part in the argu-
ment. were present.
STORY OF THE CASE.
This now celebrated case arises out OF the
seizure of the Canadian seaIer W. P. Say
ward in Bering sea for violation of the act
OF congress making it a penalty TO catch
seals within the waters Of Bering sea. The
vessel was libeled under the admiralty laws
Va VIC CAlLCh ObdkCS, anu dAIeE Gub
the United States district court of Alaska
declared the forfeiture Of the vessel. The
case was then brought to this court OIL a
motion for writ of prohibition to stop the
Alaska court from taking measures to en-
force its decree, the ground for this being a
contention that the. court had no juris-
diction to try the offense for the reason that
it was committed more than three miles
from shore, and therefore under the law of
%Hn
United States.
OPENING OF THE CASE.
Calderon Carlisle of this city opened the
case in behalf of the Sayward. At the out
set he said that the decision of this case
could not forestall anything that any other
branch of the government should do. OF
course. he said, IL will stop any seizure of
any foreign vessel under any existing law,
but within one month congress, If it sees
fit, may make law that every drop Of
water OF Bering aea belongs 20 the United
States, and nothing decided by this court in
the Sayward case would prevent congress
responsibility, nor would the decision
in the slightest degree interfere with the
course Of pending negotiations. He would
be perfectly frank with the court and say
that he did not believe that congress would,
any more than in 1885, claim any such ex :
elusive jurisdiction in violation of the
rights Of nations. This court may in this
case, without expressing an opinicn as to
the rights Of the United States, hold that
the seizure of this foreign vessel fifty mine
miles from land was Illegal under inter-
national law and under the existing law of
the United States and not forestall any
convention Of the United States with refer
ence to the seal property.
THE COURT NOT RESTRICTED.
He then contended that the court could
go behind the face of the proceedings and
review everything considered by the Alaska
court in order to decide whether that court
had jurisdiction. He then combatted the
government contention that the President
had taken a position on this matter by
which the courts we're bound aud that il
was political question which the court
had no right to pass upon. The
President in diplomatic correspond
ence, he said, could not
change or define tho meaning Of an act of
congress to bind the judiciary. The At
torney General took the positionYthat this
was question of territorial sovereignty,
as to which the President is actually infal-
lible. If the argument be correct, that
regardless OF the law of nations and the
act Of congress, the President can extend
the national boundaries fer oui into the
ocean, why should he stop there and not
make assertions as to our power and
right, which would, in the language OF
Justice Story, lead to mischief.
CLAIMS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Solicitor General Taft in opening the
case for the United States said its position
could be stated in two sentences. First,
that the question which tue petitioners
seek to raise is not presented to the court on
the record in the case. Second, that if it if
presented to the court, the question has
been decided. being political question, by
the political departments of the govern
ment, aud this court will not reverse or
qualify that decision. In deter ermining that
political question the executive was dis
charging his constitutional functions and
he, in the discharge Of that duty, was not an
inferior tribunal whose decision may be re-
versed by this court. That national
sovereignty on political questions had been
frequently decided.