The morning call., 1891-11-10
THE SEIZED SEALER.
Arguments Advanced in the Case Of a
British Sealing POaCher.

WAsMNGToN, Nov. 9.-The United
States Supreme Court Chamber was
crowded this morning with distinguished
members of the bar, present to hear
arguments in the Sayward Behring Sea
sealing case. Ex-Secretary Bayard and ex-
Attorney General Garland of ex-President
Cleyeland's Cabinet, ex-senator Edmunds,
Senator Mitchell of Oregon, Representative
Springer of Illinois and others were present,
besides Attorney-General Miller, Solicitor
General Taft, J. II. Choate of New Y York and
others. who will take part in the argument
Justice Bradley. who has been in feeble
health for several months past, was not
present when the court convened, but ar
rived later. The court will hear this
and other important cases, and Justif Brad
ley will take part in hearing such OF them as
his health will permit aud the others will 60
on without him.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
This celebrated case arises out of the
seizure of the Canadian sealer w. p. Say
ward in the Behring Sea for violation of
the act OF Congress making 1t penalty to
catch seals within the waters of the Behr-
ing Sea. The vessel was libeled under the
admiralty laws Of the United States, and
after trial by the United States District
Court of Alaska, it declared the forfeiture
to the Supreme Court on q motion for
writ of prohibition to stop the Alaskan
court from taking measures to enforce the
decree. the ground for the motion being the
contention that the court had no jurisdic-
tion TO try the offense for the reason that
1t was committed more than three miles
from shore and therefore under the law of
nations without the jurisdiction of the
United States. By this method it is sought
to secure an opinion from the court on the
xytg hal 70 q lor,1 tir,n in,
controversy between tine United States and
Great Britain, as to the right of the former
country to exclusive control of the seal fish,
cries OF the Behring Sea.
IN FAVOR OF ENGLAND.
The opening skirmsh in this legal battle
resulted IN favor Of Great Britain. the
court deciding against the preliminary plea
by the United States. that the Supreme
Court could not entertain even motion for
leave to file petition for writ of prohi-
biti0n. Since the legal proceedings began
an agreement has been reached between the
two Governments, under which it is hoped
to secure final and definite solution of the
long-pending diplomatic dispute, but this
will not affect the present case. Calderon
Carlisle Of this city opened the case in be-
half OF the owner of the Sayward. At the
outset he said the decision of this case could
not forestall anything that any other
branch of the Government should do. "Of
course" he said, "it will stop any seizure of
any foreign vessel under any existing law.
This court may, in this case, without eX-
pressing any opinion as to the rights of the
United States, hold that the seizure of this
foreign vessel, fity-nne miles from land,
was illegal under International law and
under the existing law of the United States,
and not fOreStall any convention of the
United States with reference to seal prop
erty.'
CLAIMS OF THE COUNSEL.
He combated the position taken by the
United States that this court was bound by
the face of the proceedings and could not 60
behind what was shown en- the record sub
mitted by the Judge of the ALASKA court.
First taking up the words of the libel, which
sets out that ''the vessel was seized in that
part OF the Behring Sea ceded by Russia to
the United States" he said: 1T might
very well be held that no part of it was
ceded by Russia. If it was cession from
anybody it was cession from the civilized
world. for Russia could not cede beyond
three miles from shore" Carlisle next took
up the point raised by the United States
that if the court could 60 behind the return
OF the Alaska Judge there was no evidence
which it may be presumed might have iusti-
fed the court in holding that tue seals were
taken within the three-mile limit "The
Attorney-General," Carlisle said, ''in addi-
ton to the two small barriers of
another more serious one, namely,
that the position taken by the
Executive with reference to the Behring
Sea was position taken on political Ques-
tion, that of national sovereignty, which
absolutely binds the court, whether that
position be right or wrong. The argument,
if it be correct that regardless of the law of
nations and acts of Congress the President
can extend the national boundaries far out
into the ocean, shall stop there and not
make assertions as to our power and right
which would, in the language of Justice
Storey, lead to universal mischief" He then
asked why, if the United States could try
waters, why not try British sailors for mur-
der? He claimed that writ of prohibition
must issue because of the fundamental want
of jurisdiction in the Alaska court.
THE GOVERNMENTS CASE.
Solicitor General Taft, in opening the
case for the United States, said its position
could be stated in two sentences: First
The question which the petitioner seeks
here 10 raise is not presented 10 the court
on the record In the case. Second-That il
it is presented to the court the question has
been decided, being political question. by
the political departments of the Govern
mcnt, and the court will not reverse or
qualify that decision. Taking up the politi-
cal phase of the argument, the Solicitor
General said the Government did not deny
that the jurisdiction of the Alaska court
and the venue of the offense were judicial
questions to be decided by that court. and
by this court in proper case. What he as
serted was that the jurisdiction of that
court and the venue of the offense by
single step was made inevitably to depend
upon national jurisdiction in the Behrng
Sea; that is political question, and that
the decision of the Executive and OF Con-
gress on that political question is conclu-
sive, not only upon this court but upon
every citizen within the jurisdiction.