The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-11-10
386
THE sAYWARD CASE Up !.
Argument On the Boring Sea Dis
pute Begun Before tho su-
prenle Court s54
Z S
An Array or Distin9uished Attor-
neys Present When the
Court Took II Up.
. 49, Z 8
Contention or the Lawyers In the Case--
Harrison Not Afraid Of McKin-
ley:--Only blaine.


morning by distinguished members Ut the
Bar Who we're present to hear the argument
in tho sayward BerinR sea ssalera case.
;Ex- Secretary Bayard and 5ex-A Attorney Cen
1eral Garland, OF President Cleveland y cab
met, ex-senator Edmupds and Senator
Mitchell, of Oregon. Ropressn ntative
Springer, Of Illinois, and others were pres
ent besides Attorney General Miller, solic-
itor-G General Taft. Joseph II. Choate, Of
New York, and others who will take part ii
the argument. When tho court assembled
Justice Bradley was not present, but 3he ar-3
rived and took his place on the bench Just
before the Sayward case was called 40 the full
court was present when the hearing began.
This celebrated case arises out Of the
seizure of the Canadian sealer w. =. Say
ward, III Bering sea, for violation Of the act
OF congress making il q penalty to catch
aeals within the waters Of Bering sea. The
vessel was libeled under the admiralty laws
Of the United States and, after trial in the
United States district court, was declared
forfeited. The case was then brought to
this court on motion for q writ OF prohibi-
tion to stop the Alaska court from taking
measures to enforce the decree, the ground
for the motion being the contention that
the court had no jurisdiction to thy the Of
fense, for the reason that it was committed
more than three miles from the shore and
therefore, under the law OF nations, with
out the jurisdiction Of the United States.
BY this method It is sought 70 secure an
opinion from the court on the question
which has been for a long time in contro-
versy between the United States and Great
Britain as to the right or the former coun-
trv to the exclusive control Of the seal ish-
cries Of Bering sea. ", IN, \
Tho opening skirmish in this legal battle
resulted in favor Of Great Britain, the court
deciding against the preliminary plea by
the United States that the supreme court
could not entertain even 9 motion Tor leave
toEfle petition for awrit Of prohibition
Since the legal proceedings began an agree
ment has been reached between the two
governments under which it, IS hoped to
secure final and II efinite solu ution Ut the long
lpending diplom atio dispute, bnt thls WI WY
mot affect the present case. Calderon Car
| lisle Of this city, opened the case II behalf
Of the owner Of the SayWard. At the outset
he said 4 decision Of the case could not
| forestall anything any other branchof the
| government should do. Of course, he SAID.
vessel under any exising law. Thie court
may in this case without expressing any
opinion as to tho rights Of the United States
| hold that the seizure Of this foreign vessel,
ffty-nine miles from land, was illegal
under International law, and under the ex-
listing law of the United States and not
forestall any convention Of the, Omitted
erty. Carlisle combatted the posi-
tion taken by the United States that
this court was bound by the face of the
proceeding and could not go behind what
| il 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 iii that part Of Bering sea
ceded by Russia to the United States" He
said il might very well be held that no part
of it was ceded BY Russia. If it was ces-
sion from anybody it was cesslon from
the civilized world, for Russia could not
| cede beyond three miles from tho shore.
Carlisle next took up the point raised BY
4 the United States that it the court could 90
bohind the return Of the Alaska judge there
was evidence which it may be presumed
might have justified the court in holding
| that seals we're taken within the three mile
| limit. Tie attorney general, Carlisle says,
/ in addition to the two small Barriers OF
which he had spoken, had 5setgnp another
more serious one, namely, that the position
taken by the executive with reference to
Bering sea was position taken on q politi-
cal question, that Of national sooyereignity,
|
whether that position be right
or wrong. If the argument be
correct that regardless of the laws Of na-
tions and the acts Of congress- the president
| can extend the national boundaries far out
into the ocean, shall he stop there and not
make assertions as to our power and right,
which would, in the language OF Justice
Starr, lead to universal mischief. Lie then
asked why if the United States could try
British sealers for otfenses in any OF these
waters, why not British sailors for murder!
He claimed the writ of prohibition must
| issue because of fundamental want OF Jur1s-
diotion in the Alaska court.
| Solicitor General Taft. in opening the
case for the United STATES, said its poaltlon
could be stated in two sentences: First,
that the question which the petitioner seeks
here to raiso ls not presented to the court =
4 on the record in sthe case; second, that II
it is presented to the court the question has
been decided, being political question, BY
the political departments Of the
government, and the court will not reverse
or qualify that decision. Taking up the
political phase Of the argument the solicitor
general said the government did not deny
! that the jurisdiction Ut the Alaska court
and the venue Of the offense were Judicial
ouestions, que to be decided by TINT court and
by this court in proper case. What he
INSERTED, was the Jurisdiction Of that court
and the venue of that offense. by a single
stop ii was made inevitably to depend upon
national jurisdiction in Boring son. That
is d political question and the decision to
execute the act of congress- on that political
question is conclusive, not only upon this
court, but upon every citizen within the
Jurisdiction. e@- n - 49,
| -.@. HIS ONLY RIVAL. @.
l .- ID