The Portland daily press., 1891-11-11
NATIONS THE LITIcAMTS.
The Test Case Involving the Behr
ing Sea Question.

WASHINGTON, November 10-The case
Of the schooner Sayward VS.. the United
| States, involving the settlement of import.
ant points connected with the Behring sea
controversy. was called for argument be-
| fore the United States Supreme Court YES.
terday afternoon.
All the justices of the court were present
and many distinguished persons, includ-
ing ex-Secretary Bayard, ex-senator Ed
munds and Attorney Gener al Miller, were
also in the court room.
A full court was present when the hear
ing began. This case arises out of the
seizure of the Canadian sealer W. z. Say
ward in Behring sea for violating the act
of Congress making it unlawful to catch
seals within the waters of Behring sea.
The vessel was libelled under the ad-
miralty laws of the United States, and,
after trial, the United States District
Court Of Alaska declared forfeiture Of
the vessel. The case was then brought to
this court on a motion for a writ of prohi-
Dition p, TO stop the Alaskan court from tax
ing measures to enforce its decree, the
ground for this motion being a con-
jurisdiction to try the Of
tense. for the reason that ii was committed
more than three miles from shore, and.
therefore, under the law of nations, with
out the jurisdiction of the United States.
The hearing was resumed this morning.
Solicitor General Taft continuing his argu-
ment begun yesterday. He reviewed all
tne facts connected with the seal seizures
In support OF his contention that the gov
ernment had taken position on the ques-
tlon Of our rights In Behring Sea. and Con-
gress had sustained that position. A con-
croversy between the two countries, in
which the questions were the very ones
Involved here, was In a way of being de-
cided by arbitration. Now this court was
asked by the other side to say. in advance
OF arbitration. that the position of the
United States was wrong.
Justice Gray asked il arbitration was
agreed upon, and Attorney General Miller
said It had been. The Solicitor General
remarked that the official announcement
would probably be made before the case
was ended. In conclusion, Mr.. Taft con
tended that one question involved was
much more important than the seal fish
cries. That question was whether 1t should
be left to foreign government, If only it
could hurry into our courts the question
of private right growing out of diploma
tic controversy in which our government
had taken a certain position, to appeal to
this court to reverse the decision Of the
executive.
Attorney General Miller addressed the
court In behalf of the United States. he
complimented the Solicitor General and
said that the case had been so ably and
fullypresented.
In speaking on the technical legal ques-
tlon that the court was strictly limited to
the face of the proceedings and could not
consider evidence. the Attorney General
called attention to the ClaaSen case, in
which a request that evidence be cartifed
with the bill OF exceptions was refused on
the ground that after sentence, where no
appeal was allowable, evidences could not
be considered. He ridiculed the claim
that there was difference between the
prohlpltion Def0re and after sentence. The
race OF the libel. he said, showed jurisdic-
tlon over the subject matter and the vessel
mad been seized. This court was bound to
assume that the district court would act
rightly. Aside from all other considera-
tlons,the diplomatic department of the gov
ernmeht had decided the question aud by
tne agreement recently entered into, it was
to be subject to arbitration and the question
would be settled in an orderly way.
Mr.. Choate, In behalf of the British gov.
ernment, said he did not understand that
the justice of the claim of this ship owner
was disputed. The whole attempt on the
part OF the United States had been to pre-
vent consideration of the merits of the
case He urged that this claim of private
right ought to be decided without regard to
the political considerations involved. He
cited number Of cases in support of his
claim. The court had the fullest right to
go into all matters necessary to determine
whether the Alaskan court rightfully had
jurisdiction. As the United States itself
could not have jurisdiction fifty-nine miles
from shore, no court of the United States
could acquire such jurisdiction. As soon
as 1t appeared in the proceedings that the
things whose creature the court was, had
no jurisdiction, the court should dismiss
the case against the vessel. After
ridiculing the calculations by
which the government placed the Sayward
sealing on top of mountain and therefore
claimed that 1t must have been near the
shore, Mr.. Choate asserted that the vessel
could not have been seized on the high
seas by any foreign nation for violation of
a municipal regulation. Mr.. Choate QUOT
ed from Secretary Bayard's correspondence
and insisted that 1t showed that the gov
ernmeDt did not at the time the seizure
was made assert sovereignty over Behring
Sea, but merely claimed the Interests Of
all mankind" demanded the preservation
of seal property; nor said he had Congress
assented to such doctrine, so there was
the President alone with this remarkable
Jurisdiction