The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-01-28
HIS ANSWER GIVEN.
The Attorney General FILES His Reply
In the WIZ of Prohibition Gase.

The Attorney-Genersl files His Reply
In the wit of Prohibition Case.
WASHINGTON, y. c., Jan. G.-At.
torney-General Miller presented his an
answer in the Supreme Court this afternoon
20 the motion for leave 10 dle petition for
a writ Of prohibition 10 annul the proceed
ings Of the sitka, Alaska, Court in the case
OF the schooner Sayward seized by the
crush" in the summer Of 1881. for catching
seals in Alaska waters. The AttOrney-Gen-
eral in his argument opposed the motion
for leave 70 file the petition Oh the following
grounds:
First-That the Supreme Court has no
/ power in any case 20 issue a writ Of prOhi-
bitiOn 10 the Sitka Court. because it is not
| District Court Of the United states, being
merely Territorial count. lie argued fur
| ther that the question Of Jurisdiction Of the
| Alaska Court which the petitioners seek 10
present, cannot be raised on the record OF
the admiralty proceedings on file with the
! Supreme Court. because the face Of these
proceedings show jurisdiction IN the Alaska
| Court and after sentence in such cases, he
| argued, prohibition evil not issue
In concluding his argument he held that
cOncedng all the facts ayerred in the peti-
tion the question Of the jurisdiction of the
Alaskan court depends upon the extent #
Behring Sea. This. be maintains. is
political question 10 he decided 10y the
| political department OF the Government.
the exclusive act Of Congress, both of
which have decided against petitioners
contention, and this decision must De con-
elusive upon the jurisdiction.
Mr.. Carlisle. replying To the Attorney
Generals contention that the supreme Court
has no power 10 issue "A writ Of prohibition
to the Alaskan Court. because it is not q
District Court Of the United States. argued
that when Congress created the Judicial
District of Alaska and established Dis
trict Court there, with powers similar 10
District Courts i'm the states. that the cNcr-
else Of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction
conferred upon that court was TO De
upon the same and within the same limits
as already exercised by all other District
Courts, Congress intended tp place this
Alaskan Court in respect 90 admiralty
jurisdiction, precisely on the roofing Of the
other strict Courts, and 10 subject ITS
judgments in the same manner 10 the re-
vision Of the Supreme Court. ON -rwise tac
Alaskan COuL would bee a Supreme Court
with greater powers in admiralty cases
than any District Court Of the United
States
Replying 10 the AttOrney-Generals argu-
ment that the matter Of the extent of the
Sea is a political question to bp decided 10y
the political department OF the Government
the Executive and Congress. and which
they had already decided against
the petitioners contention, Mr.. Car
Isle insisted that the real question Was
not whether the judiciary Will assume toI
Oyerrule the Executive and Congress in "a
position which they have taken towards
Great Britain. but whether the Judiciary
H. FHflNN
private rights, acts of Congress and treaty
winch are all parts of the supreme law of
the land, and which leaves 10 its cOnstruc-
tiOn the true meaning Of The words "Do-
minion of the United States I'm Behrng
sea.
With the broader international question
the court was not asked 90 concern Itself;
and even that. he added, was "a matter not
between the United states and Great Brit
ain, but between the United states and tle
civilized world, before which the Congress
of the United States had distinctly refused
10 assert by the more force of municipal
law any extent Of dominion not recognized
by the law Of nations. The seizure of the
Sayward was made by vessel of .he rcNe-
nue. marine to enforce the municipal laws
of the United States, and not to ",i ud or
assert her international rights, and tine
rightfulness Of the seizure bee maintained,
was by the Executive submitted 10 the
judicial branchlrepresenied bv the district
court of Alaska. 30 10 WAS difficult % ur-
derstand how question. which was Judi
cial before the district court. could become
"A political question when submitted io the
Supreme Court Of the United states. While
it is clear. he said. that political question
il one which the Executive cannot Dee either /
superseded or Oyerruled by any disposition
which the supreme Court may make of the
case, it cahuot be admitted that the court
can decline 10 entertain the application for
the writ. because its issuance. according to /
law, might affect some contention of The
Executive
NOT An ATTEMPTED PROCEEDING.
lie then cited number Of cases in which
the court bad decided that il was hognd by
the action Of the politic0l department. but
insisted that in all these cases the court
followed the ruling Of The political depart /
ment, always 0S a rule of decision. neNA as
ground for refusing to hear "a case proper
tx arising under the Cons. .itutim and the
fws. The application before the court is
not an attempted proceeding against The
United states. The Court il not asked to
control or direct or interfere with the LN-
ecutiVe in the performance oi any duty im-
posed by the Constitution or the laws.
Mr. Carlisle denied an assertion made by
the Attorney-G Gencral that This was not a
bona fide effort 10 enforce private right or
an attempt 10 transfer an international dis
pute from the political diplomatic branch of
the Government u the judicial, and insisted
that this is case on which the court not
only can but must act rs "A purely Judicial
tribunal. The only tights which the court
is asked 10 pass upon are the rights
of Cooper, the owner Of the SlywJrd, and
the Intervention Of the Attorney -Gencral of
Canada. il was maintained. instead of JUS
tifying any charges of mala iides against
counsel or the Attorney -General of Canada.
should rather be commended. Good faith
toward the supreme Court and To-
wards the Executive required that
the Government OF Canada, 10 whom
the owner had committed his case.
the assertion of his private rights
should not conceal its real position in the
matter, but having obtained tine approval
of the imperial government should penly
seek in the highest court of the United
states to support ana enforce the private
right of the owner under the laws of The
nited states.
MIR. CHOATE SPEAKS.
Joseph II. Choate followed Mr. Carlisle
in an elaboration of the argument presented
in the printed briefs OF the petitioners coun-
scl.
Att L. NJ, the Court adjourned. Mr.
Choate had not concluded hi, argument,
but will resume and finish il tomorrow.
NEW YORK MARKETS.