The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-11-10
THE SAYWARD CASE.
Argument Begun in the United
States Supreme Court.
eERINc sEAQUEsTIoNINvoLvED
Argument Of Senator Carlisle for the
British sealers, and OF Solicitor.
General Taft for Governments

WASHINGTON CIT, Nov a-The United States
supreme court chamber was crowded this morn
ing by distinguished members OF the bar, pres
ent TO hear the arguments OF the sayward Ber-
ing sea sealers case. Ex-secretary Bayart and
ex.A.torney-Genersl Garland. Of President
Cleyeland's cabinet, ex-senator Edmun1s, sena-
tor Mitchell, of Oregon; Representative
Springer, of Illinois, and others were present.
besides Attorney General Miller, Solicitor-Gen-
ersl Taft, Joseph H. Choate, OF New York. and
Others, who will take part in the argument
Justice Bradley, who has been in feeble health
for several months past, was also present. Ths
court viii therefore hear this and other import
ant cases, and Justice Bradley will take In the
hearing of such Of them as his health will per-
NIT, and the others will go on without him
Senator Carlisle comba,ted the position taken
by the United States that this court was bound
by the face of the proceedings and could not
go behind what was shown on the records AZ
submitted BY the Judge Of the Alaska court.
First taking up the words of libel, which
set out: "The vessel was seized In
this part OF Bering sea eeded by
Russia to the United States" he said it might
very well Be held that no part Of IL was coded by
Russia. Ii it was cession from anybody, il was
cession from the civiLsed world, for Russia
could not esds beyond three miles from the
shore.
The solicitor general, in opening for the
United states, said its position could be stated
in two sentences:
First-The question the petitioner seeks here
to raise 10 not presented 70 the court on the rec
ORD IN the case.
sseond-That II 1t IL presented to the court
the question has been decided. being political
question, by the political departments OF the
government, and the court will not reverse or
qualify that decision.
ment, the solicitor general said the government
did not deny that the Jurisdiction Of Alaska
court and venue of the ohense were
judicial questions, TO be decided by that court
and by this court In q proper case. What he
asserted was that the jurisdiction OF that court
and the venue of offepss by . single step
was made inevitably to depend upon ma
is, political question, and that
the decision OF the executive and
of congress on that political qestion II con-
elusive not only upon this court but upon
every citizen within the Jurisdiction.
Carlisle next took up the point raised by the
United States that II the court could 20 behind
the returns OF the Alaska judge, there was
evidence which 1t may be presumed might have
justified the court in holding that the seals
were taken within the three-mile limit.
Attorney General Carlisle said, in addition to
the two small barriers of which he had
spoken had set up another more serious
one, namely, that the position taken
oy the executive WIN reference TO Bering sea
was position taken on q political question,
that of national sovereignty, which absolutely
binds the court, whether that position be right
or wrong. The argument that, regard.
less of the law OF nations and the
act OF congress, the president
can extend the national boundaries far
out into the ocean would, in the language
OF Justice Story lead to universal mischief.
He then asked why, If the Uni
Etefp fry for
offenses in any OF these waters, why no, British
sailors for murder? He claimed that a writ of
prohibition must issue because OF the iunda.
mental want Of Jurisdiction In the Alaska court