Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1891-11-12
Important Action Involving Questions
OF International Law Before
the Supreme Court.
1t Arises from the Seizure of an
American Sealing
Schooner.
The Case Ably Argued and Turns on a
Question of Juris-
dictiOn.

WASHINGTON, Nov. "a large asse
blage OF distinguished attorneys was pres
ent in the supreme court today when the
celebrated case arising out of the seizure
Of the Canadian sealing schooner in
Behring sea and its forfeiture by the dis
trict court of Alaska came up for argu.
ment. Since the legal proceedings began
an agreement has been reached between
the two governments by which it is
hoped to secure final and definite solution
OF the long pending dispute, but this will
not affect the present case. Calderon Car
Isle opened the case In behalf of the own
ers OF the Sayward. He combatted 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 record as submitted by
the judge Of the Alaska court.
As 10 the contention that the vessel was
seized in THAT part OF Behring sea ceded
by Russia to the United States he said
Russia could not cede beyond three miles
from shore while the Sayward was cap
tured SO miles out. He took up the point
raised by the United States, that if the
court could 60 behind the return of the
Alaska judge there was evidence which
might have justified the court IN holding
that the seals were taken within the three
mile limiG.
The attorney general, said Carlisle, had
set up another serious barrier, namely
that the position taken by the executive
with reference to the Behring sea was that
OF national sovereignty, which absolutely
binds the court If the argument is cor
rect that regardless of the law of nations
and an act Of congress, the president can
extend the national boundaries far out into
the ocean, shall he stop there and not make
assertions as TO oar powers and ri ghts,
which would, Iii the language of Justice
Storey, lead to universal mischief. He
asserted that writ of prohibition must
issue because of the fundamental want of
jurisdiction IN the Alaska court.
solicitor General Taft in opening the
case for the United States said its position
could be stated In two sentences: first,
that the question which the petitioner
seeks here to raise is not presented to the
court on record In the case; second, that
II 1T is presented to the court the question
has been decided, being political ques-
ton, by the political departments of the
government, and this court will not re-
verse or qualify that decision.
Taking up the political phase of the
argumen. the solicitor general SAID the
government did not deny that the jurisdic-
ton Of the Alaskan court and venue of the
offence were Judicial questions to be de-
cided by that court and this court in the
proper case. What he asserted was,
that the jurisdiction of that court
and the venue of the offense by
q single step was made inevitably
to depend upon national jurisdiction in
the BehriHg sea, that that is a political
question, and the decision of The executive
ard congress on that political question is
conclusive, not only upon this court but
upon every citizen within it's Jurisdiction.