Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-11-10
THE SAYWARD CASE.
QUESTION or THE JURISDICTION OF
THE ALASKAN COURT.
The Appeal In the Uaitcd States Court OF
Last Resort-DIstingnIsbed Coun-
sei-The Argument.
ury telegraph 20 tho Dispstch.I


WksHSGros, ID. O.. November 9.--The
United States Supreme Court chamber
was crowded this morning with dis
tingnished members of the bar present 10
heaf arguments in the celebrated case Of
Thoaas Henry Cooper against the Judge
of the United States Court for the district
of hlaska. better known as the Sayward-
Bering sealaries case. Ex-Secretary Bay
ard and ex-Attorney-G General Garland, of
Prevalent Cleveland's Cabinet: ex-senator
Edwunds. Senator Mitchell, OF Oregon /:
Representative Springer. OF Illinois, and
others were present. General Taft, MIR.
Joseph Fl. Choate. of New York, and
Others will take part in the argument.
This row celebrated ease ARISES out OF the
seizure of the Canadian sealer W. Il. Say
ward in Bering Sea for violation OF the
acts Of the Congress making it penalty
to eafch seals within the waters of Bering
Sea. The vessel was hbellsd under the ad-
miraity laws of the United States and al
ter trial the United States District Court
Of Alhska declared forfeiture OF the YES
sci. The case was then brought TO this
court on q motion for q writ Of prohibition
to stop the Alaskan court from taking
measures to enforce its decree, the ground
for this BEING contention that the Court
had no jurisdiction to try the offence. for
the reason that it was committed more
than three miles from shore, and therefore
under the law of nations without the iuris-
diction of the United States.
Mr.. cXIDRRoN CARLISLE roB THE slYwARD.
Mr.. Calderon Carlisle. of this city,
opened the case in behalf of the Sayward.
At the outset he said that the decision OF
this case could not torestall anything that
any other branch of the Government should
do. Of course. he said. 10 will stop any
seizure of any foreign vessel under any
existing law. but within one month Con-
gress, if il sees fit, may make a law that
every drop Of Behring Sea belongs to
the United States, and nothing decided
by this Court in the Sayward case would
prevent Congress from dong that on its
own responsibility, nor would the decision
in the slightest degree interfere with the
couFee of pending negotiations. He would
Re perfectly frank with the Court and say
that he did not believe that Congress
would any more than in 1889 tclaim any
such exclusive jurisdiction in violation OF
the rights OF nations.
This Court may in this case, without ex-
pressing any opinion as to the rights OF
the United States. hold that the seizure OF
this. foreign vessel fifty-nine miles from
land was illegal under, international Law
and under the existing law of the United
States. and not forestall any convention OF
the United States with reference TO sea-
property.
GOING BEHIND THE PROCEEDINGS.
He then contended that the Court could
90 behind the face of the proceedings and
review everything considered by the
Alaska court in order to decide whether
that court had jurisdiction. He ther
comhated the Government contention
that the President had taken aposition on
this matter by which the courts were
bound. and that it was political ques-
ton upon which court had no right to
pass. A contention of the President u
diplomatic correspondence, he said, could
not change or define the meaning OF al
act of Congress or bind the judiciary.
THE ArroRYEY-GESERAL
took the position that this was question
of territorial sovereignty, as to which th'
President is actually infallible. III the ar
gument be correct that. regardless OF tht
law of nations and an act of Congress- the
President can extend the national boun
daries far out into the ocean, why should
ne stop there and not make assertions a:
to our power and right which would, II
the language of Justice Story, lead TO uni
yersal mischief?
soLrcTToR-oEyEBAL TAFT,
in opening the case for the United States
|, said its position could be stated in two
sentences: First, that the question which
tbe.petitioners seek here to raise is no
presented to the Court on the record IL
the case. Second. that If it is presented
10 the Court the question has been de
cided. being political question. by the
% ssr,si 1spertments of the Government,
| and this Court will not reverse or qualify
| that decision. In determining that politi
cal question the Executive was dischargine
his constitutional functions. ard he. IN
the discharge OF that duty, was not an IN
ferior tribunal whose decision may be re.
versed by this Court. That national
sovereignty was a political question hai
been repeatedly decided, and that con
gressional action was not necessary wa
decided bv this Court when it held that i
was bound by the correspondence OF th'
Secretary of State in the dispute over th'
sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.