New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-16
THE APPEALCANNOT BE TAKEN
IMPLEMENTS TO TIE BEHRING SEA CASE
IN THE SUPREME COURT.

FOR SUCH \ MONE-A CASE SIMILAR ~
THAT OF THE sAYwARD-wHAr
THE BRITISH COUNSEL SAYS.
IBr TELEGRAPH 10 The rhisuyE.l
Washington, Jan. lj.-In regard 10 the attempt
Of Lord Salisbury % embarrass the executive
branch OF the Government. charged under the
Constitution with the conduct Of diplomatic
negotiations by an appeal 10 TIE judicial branch
in the case Of the seized schooner w J. Sayward'
il may he interesting TO note that an appca! from
the District Court AT Sitka 10 the United States
Supreme Court cannot be taken, because the eX-
isting Alaskan civil code does not provide the
order or machinery which is necessary before the
appeal can come 10 the attention Of the Supreme
Court The existing Alaskan civil code was
framed by the President when. Senator Har-
rson and chairman Of the Committee on Terri
tories he drew il up and advocated It's PASSAGE
lie never for a moment intended that a right OF
appeal should be denied T. the Alasians; the
omission was purely accidental But before any
cas-, can come up from the present Alaskan DIS
trict Court u the Supreme Court special act OF
Congress, giving that permission and right, must
be on the statute-books.
A case similar 10 that Of the w. p. Sayward
WAS that Of the schooner San Diego, seized IN
1856 and CONDEMNED and contis atcd by 'hc d.
trict Court al Sitka. To get over the diilcultT
in the matter of appeal 10 tie supreme 'ouit
the owners of the san Diego entered case dr
novo al Boston in 1857. before the United Htaie'
Admiralty Court there. because they couid SIC
the captain Of the schooner directly at that STA
ton as he was there and then in discharge ol the
duties pertaining 10 his position. II was hoFd
that the case would have speedy hearing, noth
hv the Treasury Department rs well as ny the
plaintiffs and Il was 10 bc appealed 10 me ~
meme Court Immediately 10y either party to II 80
the ease should 20 against them. Bnt up TO da'e
il has not been cached on the docket
Senator ingalls, last August, sensible OF Is uf
feet in tie Alaska code. introduced bill 10
remedy the omission and enable an appeal 10 get
before the Supreme Court. FOR some r'a'oH u,
other this bill has not been acted upon-cIoN'''
OH, by the pressure of other business most likely
Therefore the attempt 10 get similar ease mo
the Supreme Court j., rot, strictly speaking
r.,y ONO II * new only IN that the British Gov
eminent has seen NJ officially 20 back NJ the APP
peal. Nor can il I've regarded as a surprise to the
Administration II is not in cont al The present
moment, and il cannot get into court unless Con
gr..>s remedies the existing law, or course Is
taken similar 70 that pursued in the case OF Tie
san Diego.
Caldcron Carlisle counsel for the British Gov
ernment IN answer TO the question whether th'
Rehring Sea motion in the Supreme Court wac
n tended 70 transfer diplomatic matters from mo
State Department 10 that CONT. As was reneTaIY
rcporfed. is quoted By Tie Washington POST as
SAYING
Tile question raised ~ th~ suggestion for
writ Of prohibition Is not question belonging 10
the appropriate functions Of diplomacy ~ mo
political department o1 the Government nut l.
solely question Of law tie correct Interpretation
Of the existing laws OF tie United states Ihh'
question i the exclusive PROVING - tie judiciary
and IS the only question submitted - the Su-
prelnr Court Should that court hold Tat under
no c.,>'inc statute or treaty the United States
has legislative or judicial jurisdiction over The
high seas or any Of the animals therein, II may
affect the attitude of ne tinted states in sub
sequcnt ncgotiations with GIeat Britain Or any
other Nation. But such a result doe, not operate
70 deprive the Judicial power of b'c United States
from tie excTcis" ot its appropriate functions.
namely the Interpretation of the laws or the
United States
The scope and purposr ~ the proceeding in
the supreme Court is 10 obtain judicial COM
struction Of the laws u the United States. which.
under the construction given by the District
Court Of Alaska. have deprived British subjects
Of nearly half million dollars worth Of property.
The question Is not what may the tnlleI States
do in Ichriug Sea. but what has u done? II /
the United States claims the night Of property in
either the high sea or it, animals II can so de- |
clare by statute tomorrow. and the courts would
be bound 10 follow the law, whatever diplomatic ,
negotiations might arise in consequence with |
other nations
" II j, not 10 be presumed that the Supreme |
Court viii decide any question adversely 10 the
| United States enormously. and there seems 10 Re
no lust complaint against Great Britain thar |
She has sought an Interpretation and construc- /
tog, not Of any diplomatic situation or con
tcntion. but Of the existing laws Of the United |
States from the only department cousti utionality !
qualified 10 give IT, and from Il higher branch Of
that department than the District Court OF
Alaska whose decisions under existing law are
not rcycwable. either by appeal writ OF error.
" Certainly all parties concerned are entitled 10 |
an Interpretation Of the existing laws Of the
[ nted States from an authoritative source That |
is all that i sought. and Is precisely what the
cxccuiivc and legislative branches Of thc Gov
eminent are constitutOnally disqualified 10 give.
SENATOR MORGAN'S RESOLUTION.
DECLARING THE ACTION OF THE BRITISH GOV