The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1891-11-10
THE SAYWARD CASE
Arguments Regarding q Behring
Sea Seizure.
GOVERNMENTS BEFORE THE COURT.

A Case Where the Supreme Court
of the United States Decided
Against Our Government on the
Question OF Jurisdiction-To BE
Concluded This Afternoon.
WASHINGTON. Nov <10.-Interest in
the Sayward, or Behring sea case, in
volving important points in the con-
troversy between the United States and
Great Britain concerning the right of
jurisdiction in Behring sea, brought an
unusual number of people to the chamber
Of the Federal supreme court to hear
the arguments of the contending parties.
Ex-Secretary Bayard and ex-senator
Edmunds sat within the bar, and gave
close attention to what was said. A
number of other distinguished lawyers
were present, and every member of the
court was in his seat. Attorney General
Miller and Solicitor General Taft repre-
sented the United States, while Calderon
Carlisle, of Washington, and Joseph Fl.
Choate, Of New York, appeared for the
British government. The case in con-
troversy is that of the schooner w. p.
Sayward, Canadian vessel seized by the
United States in Behring sea for illegal
sealing, supposedly fifty-nine miles from
any shore.
The sayward was libelled by the
United States district court of Alaska
for taking seal in violation of the statutes
of the United States, and the case was
carried to the supreme court upon mo-
tion for writ of prohibition against
the Alaska court upon the grounds that
the vessel was seized outside the juris-
diction Of the United States over the
waters of Behring sea. The government,
when the case was called before the su-
preme court, denied the jurisdiction of
the court to consider the application for
a writ of prohibition, but the court held
adversely. Briefs were filed by both
parties, and the case came up for argu-
ment yesterday afternoon on its merits.
The Question of Jurisdiction.
Mr.. Carlisle opened the case for the
British government. He occupied Just
an hour. No decision of the court could,
he said, interfere with the independence
of congress. The court could, without
expressing any opinion on the question
of protecting seals, render decision ON
the question of a fifty-nine mile limit.
He claimed that an Alaska judge before
he signed his decree in the case, placed
upon evidence an opinion that war
ranted him in dismissing it. Mr.. Car
Isle contended that in the exercise of
power conferred on the supreme court
to issue writs of prohibition the court
was directed to revise the position of the
court below. The supreme court, he
said, was a superior court calling to ac-
| count an inferior court that had ex-
| ceeded its authority He made further
argument that the United States sn.
preme court had jurisdiction over all
other courts. The supreme court he
said, could go deeper into the case than
merely acting on the face of the papers
| presented to it, certifying the decision OF
| the Alaska court The court must not
| ignore the facts; it must not simply ex-
anime the records, and he quoted an
| opinion in support of this contention.
| He believed, he said, that the case de
| pended upon the decision of question
| of law as to whether the revised statutes
| forbade the killing of seal.
The limits of marine territory in
Behring sea were not fixed, he said, by
| the Russian treaty. bnt by the law Of
nations, and it was an absolute provision
of that law that this jurisdiction could
not be changed except by a concurrence
of nations. The attorney general had
lost sight of most important fact in
the case. He claimed that the question
was political one, and did not involve
international law. A question that in
volved the liberty and property of foreign
people could never be a political que.
tion.
Mr.. Taft's Argument
Solicitor General Taft followed foI
| fha lyI,itpd States He aIleUad that III,