St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-05-03
CANADA'S REJOINER.
Counsel File supplementary
Briefin the Sayward Case.

WASHINGTON, May 2.-Messrs. Choate
and Carlisle, counsel for the Canadian
government in the Sayward case,
holding before the United States
supreme court, which involves the
validity of the position of the
United States in the Behring sea fish
cries, have prepared supplementary
brief in the case in the nature of a re-
jOinder to the brief of the attorney gen
eTal. In this supplementary brief cOun-
sci submits that the seizure of the Say
ward was either made without warrant
of law or under an executive cOnstruc-
ton of section 1956-R. S., and claim
that the section committed no discretion
to the president of the United States,
and so far as any duty to carry out the
laws is imposed. it is upon the secretary
OF the treasury by virtue OF his Office. The
claim is made that all courts are in
feTiOr to the supreme court, and subject
to its mandamus or prohibition. Coun
sci says that while the question of ur-
iSdiction was not formally raised in the
Alaska court during,the proceedIngs.t the
claimant did raise the question before
decree that the district court had no
jurisdiction to try and punish his yes
sci. Counsel then defines the only real
question in the case: Has the United
States jurisdiction of the conduct
of a foreign vessel in the waters
of Behrng sea more than a
marine league from its shores?"
That is the question the petitioner has
sought 10 present to this court for its
decision, for upon that question his
rights must depend. After discussing
the objection Of the attorney general to
the examination by this court of the ell
4 Of 4 Il sr4,
court, counsel says that 1.-The only QueS-
ton with which this court is called upon
to concern itself is that of the jurisdic-
ton of the district court" In reference
to the claim of the attorney general that
claimant did not apply for a writ of pro-
hibltiOn before sentence, and therefore
the Judgment must stand. Counsel SAYS
the petitioners could not apply for want
of time, and whole proceedings from
libel to sentence being completed in six
days, and was in September, when the
supreme court was not i'll session.
Counsel contends there is nothing in the
evidence to show that the seals were
killed within the three-mile limit, and
quotes from the evidence to prove that
assertion, and further says: $50 that in
point of fact that evidence III no sen
tends to show that the Sayward was en-
gagged in killing seals in the pass, but
all tends and was all designed to prove
that the seal killing was not in the pass,
but in the Behring sea. 1t is manifest,
therefore, that there is absolutely moth
ing in this record upon which to make
the pretense that the seal killing was
done in the pass. But even were it
true that seal were killed in the pass,
as the pass is twenty-three miles
wide at its narrOwtst point, it could
moi raise an Inference that any Upra
killed within three miles from land.
The pretense that there was evidence
showing seal killing within three miles
of the shore is mere wild speculation,
and as the record shows was never pre-
tended to in the court below" The
brief concludes: "In the appendix to
this brief will be found the official re-
port of Capt. Shepperd of the seizure
of the Sayward.'