The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1891-11-11
THE SAYWARD CASE.
The Attorney General Makes an
Important Announcement.
ARBITRATION IS AGREED UPON.

Tho Whole Behring Sea Question to
Be Submitted to Chosen Repre-
sentatives of the Two Governments.
Mr.. Miller Defends the Finding of
the Lower Court.
WASHINGTON, Nov. lin the hear
ing before the supreme court Solicitor
General Taft concluded his argument.
He said it had been declared that the
principle that the president could seize
vessels on the high seas would enable
him to involve the country in great
deal Of trouble. He could without that
involve the country in a great deal of
trouble in the exercise of his constitu-
honal functions, but, as Chief Justice
fancy had so well said, our system of
government afforded the greatest safe
guard against the abuse of the presi-
dents powers, and at all events the
powers were conferred upon him by the
constitution and laws Of the United
States, and must, therefore, be respected.
When in the course of this branch Of
his argument the solicitor general called
attention to the instance where the pres
ident called on troops to enforce his de-
cision as to who was the governor Of
Rhode Island Justice Harlan asked if
there were not in that case some action
by congress.
Mr.; Taft,,"Yes, your honor, and we
30 hold in this case"
He then reviewed all the facts con-
nected with the seal seizures in support
of his contention that the government
had taken a position on the question of
our rights in Behring sea, and that con.
gress had sustained that position.
To be Arbitrated.
In the course of his argument MIR.
Taft intimated that the whole Behring
Eea controversy would be arbitrated,
and in response to question by Justice
GRAY, Attorney General Miller said that
arbitration had been agreed upon.
The announcement by the attorney
general, important as 1t was, did not
create that amount of visible interest
that it would have created if made out
side the supreme court chamber. Very
few present seemed to recognize the sig
nifcance Of the statement, and Mr.. Taft
went on with his argument as if nothing
had happened.
The Attorney General Speaks.
The attorney general made an ironical
allusion to the foreign policy of Great
Britain, adding that the British govern
ment had not always shown that touch
ing regard for international law of
which Mr.. Carlisle had spoken so highly,
In its international dealings.
The question of boundaries, he said,
was not question for the courts, because
the courts did not make boundaries.
fffey simply investigated and found
what the political department had es-
tablished. Courts could not question the
acts of either of the political branches Of
the government.
In conclusion the attorney general said
IN agreement had been arrived at as to
the terms Of arbitration in the Behring
sea question, and now the other side
asked that the supreme court should de.
eide the question, and not only decide it,
but decide 1t against the United States.
Mr.. Choate's Argument.
Attorney General Miller followed Mr..
Taft in continuation of the argument
for the United States. The other side,
IN Its brief, insisted on many propositions
that would not bear examination in the
light of law. He thought the juris-
dictton of the supreme court had been
settled; the opposition thought other
wise. The Alaska court, he said, was
not an inferior court. Authorities proved
II was superior court, and its findings
were just as conclusive on the supreme
court as on anybody else. The citations
Of decisions Of British courts by the
pther side were Of mayors courts and
pther inferior tribunals, and the court OF
kings bench had decided that they were
not superior courts.
Mr.. Miller, after outlining the differ
ence between the jurisdiction of superior
and inferior courts, said the decision of
the Alaska court could not be attacked
unless a.statement of want of jurisdic-
hon appeared on its face, and he quoted
Chief Justice Marshall in support of this
contention.
Joseph H. Choate, of New York city,
followed Mr. Miller. He made the clos.
ing argument for the British govern.
ment. Mr.. Choate's argument was de-
voted, as he stated in beginning, to the
exact questions at issue In the court.
He did not understand, he said, that the
question Of the court getting at the
merits of the case was at all disputed.
The three-mile law, he said, had never
been disputed until now. He outlined
the points Of international law. He
contended that, according to 1t, the
hayward was fifty-nine miles from land
and was fifty-six miles outside of all
possible jurisdiction of the United States.
1t was the duty and power of the su-
preme court to search the proceedings
of the Alaska district court to find what
Jurisdiction it had in finding that the
hayward had taken seal illegally.
An Eminent Engineer Dead.