Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-04-27
Inyolving Jurisdiction Over Belripg
Sea, Postponed Until 0cio-
her, Next.
IMPORTANT POINTS TO az coNsin-
rRCo IN rHC CASE.
Different Views by Counsel for Great
Britain aud Counsel for the
United states.
ny rcleuAph 70 tho NKw.i
TuE nEitHryg sEA aiysrioy.
yoiuminon- Dr,rn ow reth sides
a rnstpnneinrnI.

the Sayward aud Lottery cases until
October 9th. This government and
the counsel representing the British
government We're prepared TO go on
with the 5ayward case, involving Juris'
diction over Behring sea, but the con.
tinucd illness Of Justice bradley
caused the Court 10 order n postpone
mont, full bench being dcsircd 10
hear u case OF 10 much Importance.
The briefs Of both sides are very
voIuminous. They may be divided
into parts: First-rbc legal argument,
involving the right 10 bring the case
before the Court In tho rather unusual
form of writ OF prohibition; anu,
second, the politico-legal argument
involving the relations between the
departments pf government.
In the brief OF the government II IL
maintained that the writ will not un.
der the law ISSUE unless n want Of
Jurisdiction II shown on the face OF
the proceeding by which lie forfeit.
ure was dccrecd. II II maintained that
even n the United States has not
control over tho waters more than
three miles from shore, the conclusion
must necessarily be drawn that the
Court found according 10 what
was the Jurisdiction Of tho United
states, whatever that jurisdiction may
he. Numerous authorities were cited
IN support OF the denial OF the claim OF
counsel for the British government
that the Supreme Court has right 10
10 beyond the face Of the returns and
determine whether or not the court
actually and rightly has Jurisdiction 10
try the offensc. The point IL male
that, though the Alaska court II sub
Ject TO prohibition, II IN not when sit
ting In admiralty, nm inferior court In
the technical sense, but superior
| court, whose DEGREES are entitled TO
every presumption favorable to its Jur-
isdiction.
Tho counsel for Great Britain held
that no right OF appeal lay from the
/ Alaska court 10 the Supreme Court In
admiralty cases, and that therefore the
latter court should exercise more OK
tended Jurisdiction In prohibiting
thcm-lf tho party had no other rem.
edy. This matter turned upon the
meaning Of the words Sin other cases, -
m used In the Alaska court, and II
Ii maintained that II IL much too mar
row View 10 hold that by these
words tho Supreme Court 10 excluded
from the power Of review, and that II
was really intended by these words TO
give the Supreme Court the same.pow-
or OF review that 1t had over nil other
lower courts.
Counsel for the United States then
contend, these things being true, and
the Alaskan court having Jurisdiction
over the oifense alleged and jurisdlc.
ton over the claimant by reason Of
his voluntary appearance In court, II
follows that the nnding Of tho court
that the seal killing was committed
within the Jurisdiction Of tho United
States Ia conclusive and cannot be- i'm
pedched. A great number OF authors
ties are then cited M establishing the
doctrine that the finding OF the Alaska
court on u matter Of fact Jurisdiction
was conclusive, and that tho petition
for prohibition must therefore be dis
mlsscd, the Supreme court having, II
Is asserted, no power In collateral pro.
ceedings To retry and rovicw evidence.
As TO the seizure of the vessel on tho
high seas II IL coutended that any
objections based on Illegal seizure were
waived, and, furthermore, that, even II
tho seizure were Illegal, n municipal
law having been violated, the court,
when II found the vessel owner In It's
Jurisdiction, Ind nothing to do with
how he came there, but solely with his
trial Tor violation OF the law. Counsel
do not admit that the seizure on the
high seas was unlawful, and cite from
supreme court decisions M establishing
conclusively the right Of the United
States TO seize vessels on tho high seas
for ofienses committed within plaoes
over which this government has juris-
diction.
This brings the argument down to
the political aspect OF the case and II II
contended with great force, supported
ny citations from numerous decisions,
that the territorial jurisdiction OF the
United States In a political question,
from the consideration Of which the
court u stopped by the action OF the
Executive aud OF Congress In deciding
that the United States has Jurisdiction
over the waters where tho SayiOard
was seized.
This decision Of Justice Story In the
suiioik Insurance. case, counsel say,
defeats the claim that the Executive
has no power Ia himself with leglsla-
tion 70 decide n question OF sovereign
~. The existence Of such power In
mauo obvious, moreover, by tho act
under which tho seizures were ordered.
which directed the President To srIz,
All vessels taking seal In the waters of
Behring Sea. How IL the President
TO execute this command OF Congress il
no does not determine for himself what
waters Of the Behring Sea are within
tho dominion OF the United States?
Could Congress have made plaiuer liz
wish that ho should decide? Counsel
say the numerous seizures attest tbo
fact that the executive has decided that
the United States has Jurisdiction over
The Behring seas and tho voluminoIls
correspondence between the British
anu American governments In quoted
from as establishing this beyond all
Afessrs. Choate and Carlisle, In opcn.
Ing their case, lay down tho position OF
inc British government broadly, that
on the high seas n seizure aud condem.
nation OF a district court for an ofisns.
committed many miles from land are
wholly unwarranted by the law OF
nations, while, with equal confllcnce.
Il issubmitted that no law or treaty ~
thc United States warrants such seilltro
anu condemnation, mud that tho dis.