Pawtucket tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 1890-189?, 1891-11-10
THE SAyWARD CASE.
Once More a Topic of
General Interest.
RIGHTS IN BEHRING SEA.
Lawyer Carlisle and General Taft Each
Make an Able Argument.

WAsHINGToN, Nov. TO- Interest inthe Say
ward, or Behring sea case, in volving impor-
tant points in the controversy between the
United States aud Great Britain concern
ing the right.of jurisdiction In Behring sea,
brought an unusual number of people to
the chambers of the federal supreme court
to hear the arguments OF the contending
parties. A number Of distinguished per-
sons were present and every member Of
the court was in his seat. Attorney Gen
eral Miller and Solicitor General Taft rep
resented the United States, while Calderon
Carlisle Of Washington and Joseph III.
Choate OF New York appeared for the
British government.
The case In controversy is that OF the
schooner w. Il. Sayward, a Canadian ves-
sci, seized by the United States in Behripg
sea for illegal sealing. The Sayward was
libelled by the United States district court
OF Alaska for taking seals in violation of
the statutes Of the United States, and the
case came to the supreme. court upon a
motion for writ of prohibition against
the Alaskan court upon the grounds that
the vessel was seized outside the jurisdic-
tion Of the United States over the waters
of Behring sea. The government. when the
case first came before the supreme court,
denied the jurisdiction Of the court to con-
slider the application for writ of prohibit
tion, but the court held adversely Briefs
were filed for both parties, and yesterday
the case came up for
Argument on Its Merits,
Mr.. Carlisle opened the case for the
British government shortly before 2
o'clock. He occupied just an hour. No
decision OF the court could. he said. inter-
fere with the independence Of congress
The court could, without expressing any
opinion on the question Of protecting seals,
render decision on the question Of fifty
mile limit. He claimed that the Alaskan
judge, before he signed his decree in the
case, placed upon evidence an opinion that
warranted him then and there in dismiss
ing 1t. Mr.. Carlisle contended that in the
exercise of power conferred on the supreme
court to issue writs of prohibition, the
court was directed to revise the position Of
the court below. The supreme court, he
said. was the superior court calling to ac-
count an inferior court that had exceeded
its authority. He made further Argument
that the United States supreme court had
jurisdiction over all other courts. The
supreme court, he said, could 90 deeper
into the case than merely acting on the
face Of the papers presented to it, certify
ing the decision of the Alaska court
The courts mnst not ignore the facts; il
must not simply examine the record; and
he quoted an opinion in support OF this
contention. He believed, he said, that the
case depended on the decision of question
OF law as to whether the revised statutes
forbade the killing of seals.
The limits Of marine territory in Behring
sea were not fixed, he said, by the Russian
treaty, but by the law of nations, and it
was an absolute provision of that law that
this jurisdiction could not be changed ex-
cepting by a concurrence Of nations. The
attorney general had lost sight of a most
important point In the case. He claimed
that the question was political one, and
did not involve international law. A
question that involved the liberty and
property Of foreign people could never be
political question.
Uncle Sans Side.
Solicitor General Taft followed for the
United States. He alleged that the seizure
was made in the waters Of Alaska and ia
that portion of Behring sea belonging to the
United States. The other side denied this,
but the statute Of March 3, 1885, settled
that the United States had Jurisdiction.
Mr.. Taft devoted considerable attention {
the words "face OF the proceedings," con-
tending that If there was want of jurlsdic-
tion by the Alaska court a statement of it
did not appear on the face Of the proceed
ings and the court was not called on to de.
eide except on them.
He cited decisions Of English courts to
prove that unless the point at issue was
stated on the face Of the proceedings, pro-
hibition could not issue. and he Insisted
that the Alaska courts finding was conclu-
sive. 1t could not be proven, he said, that
a L. -
the three-leaguo limit. The government,
he said, did not deny that tho jurisdiction
Of the district court of Alaska and the
venue OF the offense were judicial ques-
tions, but 1t maintained that Che question
at issue was political one.
Mr.. Choate will close the argument for
the British government and Attorney
General Miller will close for tia United
States.