Los Angeles herald. [volume] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1890-1893, 1891-11-10
THE SAYWARD CASE.
Arguments in the Matter
Begun.
ALI the Supreme Judges on
the Bench.
Many Distinguished Members of the
Bar Present.
An Opinion on the Bering Sea Question
to Be Had-The Opening skfrmish
Ended In Favor of Great
Britain.
Associated Press Dispatches,

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9.-The United
States supreme court chamber was
crowded this morning with distin-
guished members OF the bar who were
present to hear the arguments in the
Sayward Bering sea sealeries case.
Ex-Secretary Bayard and ex-Attorney-
General Garland OF President Cleve-
lands cabinet, ex-senator Edmunds,
Senator Mitchell OF Oregon, Represent
ative Springer of Illinois, and other
prominent persons were present. Be-
sides Attorney-Genera Miller, Solicitor
General Taft and others will take part
in the arguments. Justice Bradley,
who has been in feeble health for sew
eral months past, was not present when
the court assembled, but he arrived and
took his place on the bench just before
the Sayward case was called. So the
full court was present when the hearing
Z began.
This celebrated case arises out of the
seisure of the Canadian sealer w. p.
Sayward in Bering sea, for violation OF
the act of congress making it q penalty
to catch seals within the waters of
Bering sea. The vessel was libeled un-
der the admiralty laws of the United
States, and after trial the United
States district court OF Alaska declared
the forfeiture of the vessel. The case
was then brought to this court ON mo-
tion for writ of prohibition to stop
the Alaskan court from taking measures
to enforce the decree, the ground for
ha,,o "a knp hak
the court had no jurisdistion to try the
ofense, for the reason that it was COM
mitted more than three miles from
shore, and therefore, under the law of
nations, without the jurisdiction of the
United States. By this method it is
sought to secure an opinion from the
court ou the question, which has been
for long time in controversy between
the United States and Great Britain, az
to the right Of the former country to
exclusive control Of the seal fisheries in
Bering sea-, Aa9. .nss3s es.
The opening skirmish in this legal
battle resulted in favor OF Great. Britain,
the court deciding against the prelimin-
ary plea by the United States, that the
supreme court could not entertain even
a motion for leave to file petition for
a writ Of prohibition.
Since the legal proceedings began, an
agreement has been reached between
the two governments under which it is
hoped to secure final and definite 60
luton OF the long pending diplomatic
diepute, but this will not affect the pres
ent case.
81 Calderon Carlisle, of this city, opened
the case in behalf OF the owner of the
Sayward. AT the outset he said the de-
cision of this case could not forestall
anything any other branch of govern
ment should do. OF course, he said, it
will stop any seizure of any foreign ves-
sci under any existing law. This court
may in this case, without expressing
any opinion as to the rights of the
United States, holds that the seizure
of this foreign vessel, fifty nine
miles from land, was illegal under inter-
national law, and under the existing
law Of the United States, and not fore
stall anv convention OF the United
States with reference to seal property.
Carlisle combatted the position taken
by the United States that this court was
bound by the face of the proceedings,
and could not 90 behind what was
shown on the record submitted by the
Judge OF the Alaska court. First taking
up the words of the libel which sets out:
''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 was a cession from
anybody, it was cession from the civil
lied world, for Russia could not cede
beyond three miles from shore.
Carlisle next took up the point raised
1,x,fh ha IIrikod Ctofoo fhof rs to rt
could go behind the returns OF the
Alaska Judge, there was evidence which
it may be presumed might have iusti-
fed the court in holding thateeals were
taken within the three-mile limit. The
attorney-general, Carlisle said, in ad-
dition to The two small barriers of which
he had spoken had set up another more
serious one, namely, that the position
taken by the executive with reference to
Bering sea was q position taken on a
political question, that Of national SOW
ereignty, which absolutely binds the
court, whether that position be right or
wrong. If the argument be correct that
regardless OF the law of nations and the
act of congress, the president can extend
the national boundaries far out into the
ocean, shall it stop there and not make
assertions as to our power and right
which would, in the language of Justice
Storey, lead to universal mischief
He then asked why, if the United
States could try British sealers for Of
fenses in any OF these waters, why not
British sailors for murder? He claimed
that writ Of prohibition must issue
because OF the fundamental want OF ju'
risdiction in the Alaska court.
Solicitor-General Taft, in opening the
case for the United States, said its posi-
tion could be stated in two sentences
First, the question which petitioner
seeks here to raise ia not presented te
the court on record in the case; second
that If it ia presented to the court the
question has been decided, being polit
ical question, by the political depart
ments of the government, and the cour
will not reverse or qualify that decision
Taking up the political phase OF thu
argument, the solicitor-general said th'
government did not deny that the juris