The Indianapolis journal., 1891-01-13
BEHRING DISPUTE IN COURT
Supreme Bench Asked to Pass on Rights
ofBritiSh Vessels in Alaskan Waters.
Petition Filed for Writ of Prohibition Against
the Sale ofa Seized Schooner-TheS SuitAp-
proved by Canada and Great Britain.


seAleries controversy came up in the
United States Supreme Court to-day on q
motion which has In view o judicial deter
mination of the dispute between the United
States and Great Britain over the seal fish
cries. ]. S. G. Choate. in behalf of Thomas
Henry Cooper. owner and claimant of the
British schooner w. p. Sayward. which
was seized in the waters of Behrlpg sea by
the revenue cutter Rush, petitioned the
court for leave to file petition for writ
OF prohibition to be directed to the judge of
the District Court of the United States in
and for the Territory of Alaska, restraining
him from proceeding with the condemna-
tion and sale of the vessel. The object is to
have the court take up and pass upon the
question of jurisdiction over these waters.
The Chief-justice made an order giving the
AttOrney-gencral two weeks to file an an
swer to the brief of Mr.. Choate, giving the
reasons, if any, why the petition should not
be granted.
The brief filed by Mr.. Choate begins by
reciting that by the law of nations the
municipal laws of q country have no extra
territorial force. and cannot operate on
foreign vessels on the high seas. and it is
legally impossible under the public law for
O foreign vessel to commit q breach of
municipal law beyond the limits of the ter
ritorial jurisdiction of the law-making
beyond the limits of the municipal terri
torial jurisdiction for breach OF municipal
regulations is not warranted by the law of
nations. and such seizure cannot give juris-
diction to the courts of the offended coun-
try, least OF all where the alleged act was
committed by the foreign vessel at the
place of seizure beyond the municipal ter
ritorial jurisdiction; that by the law of na-
tiOns British vessel sailing on the high seas
is not subject to any municipal law, except
that of Great Britain. and by the said law
of nations British ship so sailing on the
high seas ought not to be arrested, seized,
attached or detained under color of any
law of the United States. and that by the
laws Of the United States, as well as by the
laws of nations, the district courts OF the
United States have not and ought not to
entertain jurisdiction or hold plea of an
alleged breach upon the high seas of the
municipal laws of the United States by the
captain and crew OF British vessel, and
such vessel on the high seas, though she be
afterward brought by force within the ter
ritorial limits of the jurisdiction of said
courts.
was profound peace and friendship be-
tween Great Britain and the United States;
that on that day the British schooner W.
p. Sayward. George X. Ferry. q British
subject, commanding. was lawfully and
passf miles from ounsisska island. W. When It s Was
unlawfully and forcibly seized by the
armed United States revenue cutter
Rush and by force taken to Sitka. Alaska.
and there made to answer libel, filed in
the United States District Court by NJ. ID.
Ball. United States district attorney for
Alaska. charging the vessel. her owners
officers and crew with engaging in the
killing of fur seal within the limits Of tho
waters of Alaska Territory, in violation of
the statutes Of the United States. The
Court were then reversed, including the
fact that it was clearly brought out on the
trial that the killing of seals took place q
good many miles from land. $50 that the
Judge could have no jurisdiction of the
says: ''Yet the said court did. neverthe-
less, in contempt of the authority of the
United States. and in violation of the laws
of the United States. and in violation of
ns msnss sT' danses Of aat0o of Ss na ssaosS ss sh
relations of the two countries. assert and
attempt to exercise Jurisdiction in the
premises, and on the 18th day of Septem-
ber, 1857, did mako and enter a pretended
decree of forfeiture to the United States
of said vessel. her tackle, apparel, boats
cargo and furniture"
Counsel then requests the court that
writ of prohibition be issued to the Judge
of the United States District Court for Alas
ka, prohibiting him from in any manner
executing the decree Of forfeiture, or from
taking any steps whatever towards carry
ing out the order, or entering any order or
Judgment required in the course of the pro-
ceedings. The court IS informed that Sir
John Thompson. X. G. NJ. G., her Majesty's
Attorney-general of Canada, authorizes
this motion to be presented, with the
knowledge and approval of the imperial
government of Great Britain.