St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-11-10
A GREAT CASE AT LAW
Behring Sea SealerieS Before
the United States SUI
preme Court.
The Seizure and Forfeiture OF
a Canadian SealeP Is the
Issue.
Statement OF the Positions
Assumed by Counsel for
Both Sides.
A Democratic House Is Liable
to Knock Reeds Rules
Galley West.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9.-The United
States supreme court chamber was
crowded this morning with distinguished
members of the bar present 10 hear ar
guments in the celebrated case of
Thomas Henry Cooper against the Judge
of the United States court for the dis
trict of Alaska. better known as the
Hayward Bphring sea sealereS case.
EX-Secretary Bayard and eX-Attorney
General Garland, of President Cleve-
lands cabinet; ex-senator Edmunds,
Senator Mitchell. of Oregon; Repre-
sentative Springer, of Illinois, and 9th
erS, were present, besides Attorney
General Miller, Solicitor General Taft,
Joseph II. Chuate, of New York,
and others who will take part
in the argument. When the court as
Sembed Justice Bradley was not pres
ent, but he arrived at the capitol and
took his place ON the bench just before
the Hayward case was called. so that
full court was present when the hearing
began. This now celebrated case arises
out of the seizure Of TIE Canadian sealer
W. II. Hayward in BehIing sea for
violation of the act of congress making
IT penalty to catch seals within the
waters. The vessel was liheled under
the admiralty laws of the United States,
and. after trial, the United States dis
trict court of Alaska declared a for
fixture OF the vessel. The case was to
be brought to this court on motion for
A Writ Of Prohibition
20 stop the Alaskan court from taking
measures to enforce its decree, the
ground for this motion being a conten-
ton that the court had no jurisdiction to
try the Offense. for the reason that it
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
thought TO secure an opinion from this
court Oh the question which has been
for long time i'll controversy between
the United States and Great Britain as
Ia the right of the former country to eX-
elusive control of the seal fisheries in
Behring sea.
The opening Skirmish in this legal
fight resulted IN favor of Great Britain, !
the court deciding against preliminary !
plea by the United States that the SUI
preme court could not even entertain a |
writ for prohibition. Since the legal |
proceedings began, an agreement has !
been reached between the two govern
mentS under which it is hoped to secure !
final aud definite solution Of this long
pending diplomatic dispute, but this !
will not affect the present case.
CalderOn Carlisle, Of this city, opened |
the case in behalf of the owner Of the +;
Hayward. At the outset he said that |
the decision of this case could not fore !
stall anything that any other branch of
the government should. OfcOurse, he /;
said, it will stop any seizure Of any for !
eign vessel under any existing law.
what the Court Can DO.
This court may in this case, without |
expressing any opinion as to the rights !
Of the United States, hold that the seiz- /
ure of this foreign vessel fifty-nine !
miles from land was illegal under inter- |
national law, and under existing law of |
Of the United States and not forestall J
any convention of the United States
with reference to seal property. Mr.. |
Carlisle then combatted the position
taken by the United States that this
court was bound by the face of the pro-
ceedngS and could not go behind what
was shows on the record as submitted
by the judge of the Alaska court.
First taking up the words of libel, !
which sets out that 1.-THE vessel was |
seized in that part of Behring sea ceded
by Russia 10 the United States" he |
said ii might very well be held that no
part OF it was coded by Russia. If it /
were ceSSlOn from anybody, it was a
ceSSiOn from the civilized world, for
Russia could not cede beyond three
miles from shore. He next took UP the
point raised by the United States that |
If the court could go behind the returns
of the Alaska judge there was evidence
which ii may be presumed might have |
Justified the court in holding that seals |
were taken within the three-mile limit.
The attorney general, Mr.. Carlisle |
said, in addition to the two small bar
TierS of which he had spoken, had set |
uD another more serious one, namely. |
that the position taken by the executive !
with reference to Behring sea was DO |
sitl0n taken on political question, that |
OF national sovereignty. which abSo- |
lutely binds the court whether that DO /
SitiOn be right or wrong. If the argu- |
ment be correct that, regardless OF the |
law of nations and an act of congress. |
the president can extend the nat |
ural boundaries far out in the ocean. |
why should he stop there and make |
assertions as to our power and right !
which would, in the language OF Justice /
Storey, lead to universal mischief He |
then asked, If the United States could /
Try British SealerS for OtfenSeS in any of |
these waters. why rot British sailors /
Tor murder? He claimed that the writ !
of prohibition must issue because Of the i
fundamental WantO jurisdiction in the |
Alaska court.
The Governments Position.
Solicitor General Taft, in opening !
the case for the United States, said its |
position could be stated in TWO sen
fences. First-That the question that
the petitioner seeks here to raise is not |
presented 10 the court on the record in |
the case Second-That if it is pre-
scented TO the court the question is de-
cided, being Il political question, by the |
political departments of the govern
ment. and this court will not reverse or
qualify that decision.
Taking up the political phase of the
argument, the solicitor general said
that the government did not DENY 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 asserted was that the iuris-
dictiOn OF that court and the venue OF
the OifenSe by a single step was made
inevitably 10 depend upon the national
jurisdiction in Behring sea: that that is
a political question, and that the de-
clSlon OF the executive and of congress
Oh that political question is conclusive.
not only upon this court, but upon
every citizen within the jurisdiction.