Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-04-26
BERING SEA DISPUTE
The Sayward Seizure Case Is Post.
pOned Until Next October.
ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL,
As Prepared in Lengthy Briefs for the
Supreme Court.
TIE POLITICAL AND LfGAL QUESTIONS

TIE POLITICAL AND LfGAL QUESTIONS
WASHINGTON, April 25.-The case Of
! Thomas Henry Cooper. owner of the
| schooner Sayward, brought at the sugges.
tion of the Government of Great Britain to
test the question of the jurisdiction of the
United States over the seal fisheries In
Bering Sea, which has been in dispute be-
tween the two Governments during several
/, administrations, has been postponed by the
Supreme Court of the United States until
October 10 next, when argument will begin.
The case is before the court in the form oi
petition on behalf of the owner of the
vent the United States District Court for
Alaska from proceeding with the condemna-
tion and sale of the vessel under decree oi
forfeiture by the court for violation Of the
laws of the United States prohibiting the
taking of fur seals within the waters of
Bering Sea. 1t is sought by the British
Government to secure in this manner an
opinion from the highest judicial tribunal
of the United States to exercise jurisdiction
over the sea more than three miles from
land.
Would Settle the Question.
There is a contention on the part of the
United States that some of the seals may
have been taken by the Sayward within the
three-mile limit, but not much Importance
is attached to this claim. so that it. the court
decides the question on its merits, aside
from legal technicalities, it would consti-
tute. SO far as this country is concerned, q
judicial determination of the long pending
diplomatic controversy.
The case was to have come up for argu-
ment on Monday, and both sides have their
on Monday. but the Court decided not to
hear counsel at this term, owing to the ILL
ness of Justice Bradley and its desire not to
try such an important matter without full
bench. The briefs, however. have been
made public, and a summary is here given
of the argument which counsel for the
United States and for Great Britain will
advance.
The briefs are voluminous documents Of
nearly 200 pages each, and there are, in ad-
dition, copious appendices. Attorney Cen
eral Miller and Solicitor General Taft pre-
pared the argument for the United States
and Joseph H. Choate, of New York City,
and Calderon Carlisle, of Washington, for
the petitioner.
Arguments of the Counsel.
The argument for the counsel on each side
may be divided into two parts, viz: First,
q strictly legal argument, involving the
right to bring the case before the court in
rather unusual form OF writ of prohibi-
ton; and second, what may be termed a
politico-legal argument, involving relations
between the legislative, executive and ju-
dicisl departments of the Government and.
the binding force upon the judiciary OF de-
cision by the executive as to the jurisdiction
appertafning to the United States.
The former branch of the case is first
taken up by the brief of the United States,
counsel maintaining that q writ of prohi6i-
ton will not, under the law, issue, unless
the want of jurisdiction is shown on the face
of the proceedings bv which forfeiture was
decreed. The act creating the judicial dis
trict of Alaska shows that under it the
Alaska court had jurisdiction to try the of
tense committed; and it is held that the
words "waters of Alaska" in the act and in
the libel, establish conclusively the fact
that on the face of the libel the Alaska
court had jurisdiction.
Way Behind the Returns.
AS the libel alleged jurisdiction properly,
it is maintained that even if the United
States has not control over the waters more
than three miles from shore. the conclusion
must necessarily be drawn that the Court
found according to what was the jurisdic-
tion of the United States, whatever that
Jurisdiction may be.
Numerous authorities are then cited in
support OF denial of the claim set up by
counsel on the other side, that the evidence
at the trial constituted part of the face
of the proceedings" and the Supreme Court,
in passing upon the question. has a right to
60 behond the face OF returns and determine
whether or not the Court actually and right
ly had jurisdiction to try the offense.
Opinions by Lord Mansfield, Justice
Butler, Justice Storey and other eminent
jurists are cited, in which writs of prohbi-
tion were refused because the matter Of fact
upon which the petition for q writ was
based did not appear on the face of the pro-
ceedings and because the petition was not
filed until after judgment had been rendered
The Superior Court, it is held, is limited in
its action by the same record which prevents
action bV the lower court: the Judge of the
Alaska court being powerless. to annul the
decree four years after forfeiture was de- |
clared. |
Limitations of the Court.
The point is next made that though tn 10 |
Alaska court is subject to prohibition, it is
not when sitting in admiralty an inferior |
court in the technical sense, but a superior |
court, whose DEGREES are entitled to every |
intent or presumption favorable to its juris- |
diction, and the history of English jurispru-
1ence is gone into to show that courts are |
superior though amenable to prohibition.
1t was held by counsel for Great Britain |
that no right of appeal Law from the Alaska |
court to the Supreme Court in admiralty |
eases, and that therefore the latter court |
should exercise more extended jurisdic-
ton in prohibition after sentence than if the |
party had other remedy. This matter turned |
upon the meaning of the words Sin other
Eases" as used in the Alaska court; and it
is maintained that it is much too narrow a
view to hold that by these words the Su-
Dreme Court is excluded from power of re-
view over the Alaska court, and that it was
-eally intended by these words to give the
Supreme Court the same power of review
hat il had over all other low courts.
Cannot Be Impeachcd.
Counsel for the United States then con-
end that these things being true, and the
l. Il L