The critic., 1891-01-27
An ANSWER TO ENGLAND
TuE LkeAL rIeur ovER THF EERING
VA rnNInovrnsY.

Atiorusy Csssrai niIisr Opposes the Az.
ylltailuu ~ . Wit ~ rrchibitien--
A rasfsfiy Esnositian ~ law NJ.
CsiasroH csriisis Argues IN Support
~ ths nsslsa.
Aitafney General Miller presented his
ansutf o. tls surrsms Caua this Alter
noou o. ihc mofiun for lsaVc o. Ole ue-
tltion fof vris a yfohibI,inn ts snnul
The pruccciinfa nf the siika Alaska,
court In the ease a ths ahuunef say.
ward ssiscd by The nush In she summer
~ issl f0f catching ssais IN Alaskan
waters The Attorney ticncral. IN biz
argument, orfosed ths motion Cor have
70 Gle The Teiition on the falioainf
grounds
Iirvi, that thc supreme Coufi has no
power in any case 81 issue a writ - pro
hibiiion a. the S.ika cuuri, because I D.
not Disirici Cgur, q The lnlt'd states,
being merely n Territorial cuurf
He argued further that the quest on ~
Jurisdiction of the Alaska cuur', which
the petitioners se,k to present cannot b.
raised on the recurt of the admiralty pro.
Ccodings on Gle with the suprcmr Court
btcnuse the face of these pnsCceilug show
Jurisdiction IN the Alaska court, and after
sentence In such causes he argued, pro
hibition "will not issue"
In concluding his argument he held that
concedinR all the facts ayerrcd in the pe.
tition, the question a the jurisdiction oi
the Alaskan court depends upIn the ex.
tent II the dominion of the United states
| in Bering Sea.
This, he maintained. O. political quos.
ton, to be decided by the poliiical depart.
| mont Of the Government, The Executive
and Congress, both Of " which have decided
| against petitioners contention, aud this
| decision he held most conclusive upon
| the Jurisdiction.
| No consideration, whatever. the At
| tornoy General said. had been given IN his
answer, TO the question of International
law which II now and has been Tor the
| past six years the subject nf Diplomatic
| correspondence between Great Britain aud
the United States, with reference to the
| right Of this country 10 assert n
territorial jurisdiction IN BoriDg Sea
TO the extent Of protecting H. seal fisheries
beyond the thrcc-milc limit ordinarily
| fixed as the boundary of territorial iuris-
| diction of countries bordering ON the sea
Such question the Attorncy-Gcncral re-
spectfully insisted is not within the cog.
nizance of the Supreme Court, aud he,
therefore, did not discuss II.
| MT. AulllSltt TtIlNlllH W Auf sNiNhlNfN
| Generals contention that the supreme
Court has no power TO issue writ of pro-
hibition to the Alaskan court because II
is not district court of the United States
argued that when Congress crcatcl
the judicial district of Alaska aud
established district there with power.
similar to district courts In the States that
the exercise of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction conferred upon that court
was to be upon the same and within tn,
same limits as already exercised by all
other district courts Congress intended
to place this Alaskan court In respect tC
admiralty Jurisdiction precisely ON th'
footing of the other district courts, and {,
subject its judgments in the same manner
to the revision OF the Supreme Court
Otherwise the Alaskan court would bc
Supreme Court, with greater powers In al
miralty cases than any district court o
the United States.
Replyingto the Attorney -Gcnerars ar
gument that the matter of the extent o
the dominion Of the United States in Bar
ing Sea is a political question to be dc
cided by the political department of tn
Government, the Executive and Congress
and which they had already decide,
against the petitioners contention, Mr.
Carlisle insisted that the real question
was not whether the judiciary will dsswa
to overrule the Executive and Congress
in a position which they have takci
toward Great Britain, but whether tn
| judiciary can dyoid constituting In cas-
involving private rights, acts Of Congress
and a treaty, which are all parts OF tn
supreme law of the land, and which leav
to its construction the true meaning of tn
words Dominion of the United States il
| Rprinp Sea ~