Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-11-10
Comes Up in. the Supreme
Court for a Decision on
Congress Power
TO CAPTURE SUCH SHIPS.
Many Prominent Attorneys on Hand
to Argue the Question.
INTENSE INTEREST IN THE CASE.
Great Britain's Cause Being Looked After
Very Carefully.
THE OPENING SPEECHES on EACH SIDE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9-The United
States Supreme Court Chamber was crowde,
to-day with distinguished members of tn
bar present to hear arguments in the cele
brated case of Thomas Henry Cooper agains
the Judge of the United States Court fo
the District Of Alaska, better known as tn,
Saywsrd- -Bering sea sealeries case ES-Sec
retary Bayard and e1-Attorney Genera
Garland, of President Cleveland's Cabinet
ex-senator Edmunds, Senator Mitchell, o
Oregon; Representative Springer, of Hi
nois, and others were present, beside Attor
ney General Miller, Solicitor General Taft
Joseph H. Choate, of New York, and other.
who will take part in the argument Wher
the court assembled Justice Bradley wa.
not present, but he arrived at the Capitol
and took his place on the bench Just before
the Sayward case was called. so that a full
court was present when the hearing began.
This now celebrated case arises out of the
seizure of the Canadian sealer w. P. Say.
ward, in Bering Sea, for violation of the act
of Congress making it illegal to catch seals
within the waters of Bering Sea- The yes.
sci was libeled under the admiralty laws Of
the United States, and, after trial, the
United States District Court of Alaska de.
clared forfeiture of the vessel.
A Final Legal Opinion Wanted.
The case was then brought to this court
on a motion for a writ of prohibition to
stop the Alaskan court from taking meas
ures to enforce its decree, the ground for
this motion being a contention that the
court had no jurisdiction to try the offense,
for the reason that it was committed more
than three miles from shore, and, therefore
under the law of nations, without the juris-
diction of the United States.
By this method it is sought to secure an
opinion from this court on the question
which has been for long time in contro-
versy between the United States and Great
Britain as to the right of the former country
to the exclusive control of the seal fisheries
in Bering Sea- The opening skirmish in
this legal battle resulted in favor of Great
Britain, the court deciding against
preliminary plea by the United
States that the Supreme Court
could not entertain even mott
on for leave to file petition for writ of
prohibition. Since the legal proceedings
began an agreement has been reached be-
tween the two governments under which it
is hoped to secure final and definite solu-
tion of this long-pending diplomatic dis
pute, but this will not affect the present
case.
Argument for the Sayward's Owner.
Mr.. Galderon Carlisle, of this city, opened
the case in behalf of the owner of the Say
ward. At the outset he said that the decis-
ion of this case could not forestall anything
that any other branch of the government
should do. OF course, he said, it will stop
any seizure of any foreign vessel under any
existing law. This court may in this case
without expressing any opinion as to the
rights of the United States, hold that the
seizure of this foreign vessel, 80 miles from
land, was an illegal act under the interna-
tionsl law, and not forestall anv convention
of the United States with reference to seal
property.
Mr. Carlisle then combatted the position
taken by the United States that this court
was bound by the face of the proceedings
and could not 60 behind what was shown on
the record as submitted by the Judge of the
Alaska court. First taking up the words
Of the libel, which sets out that ''the vessel
was seized in that part of Bering Sea ceded
by Russia to the United States" he said it
might very well be held that no part of it
was ceded by Russia. If it were a cession
from anybody it was cession from the civ
ilized world, for Russia could not cede be-
vond three miles from shore
Mr.. Carlisle next took up the point raised
by the United States, that if the Court
could go behind the return of the Alaska
Judge there was evidence which it msv be
presumed might have justified the Court in
holding that seals were taken within the
three-mile limit.
The Most Serious Barrier Of ALL
The Attorney General, Mr.. Carlisle said.
IN addition fha fxrn e
which he had spoken, had set I'D another
more serious one, namely, that the position
taken by the Executive with reference to
Bering Sea was position taken on a poll
tical question-that of national sovereignty.
which absolutely binds the court wbetherthe
position be right or wrong. If the argu-
ment be correct that, regardless of the law
of nations and an act of Congress. the Pres
ident can extend the national boundaries
far out into the ocean, whv should he ston
there and not make assertions as to our
power and right which would, in the Ian
guage of Justice Storey, lead to universal
mischief?
He then asked why, if the United States
could try British sealers for offenses in any |
of these waters, why not British sailors for |
murder? He claimed that the writ of pro- |
hibition must be issued because of the fun- |
damental 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 tine petitioners |
seek here to raise is not presented to the |
court or the record in the case; second, that |
if it is presented to the court the question !
has been decided, being political question,
by the political departments of the Govern !
ment, and this court will not reverse or |
qualify that decision.
Taking up the political phase of the argu-
ment, the Solicitor General said the Gov |
eminent did not deny that the jurisdiction |
of the Alaskan and the venue of the offense |
were judicial questions, to be decided by |
that court and by this court in a proper |
case. What he asserted was that the juris- |
diction of that court, and the venue of the |
offense by single step was made to newt |
ably depend upon the national jurisdiction |
in Behring Sea, that that is political |
question, and that the decision of the Ex- |
ecutire on that political question is con-
elusive, not only upon this court, but upon
every citizen within the Jurisdiction.
Uncle Sam Beats Three States.