Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1891-02-06

IDLE for his due shorn OF neglect or
'ec6leSsness. West Virginia has not
Is yet suffered from from one Of these
most wofCl and disastrous horrors. but
II any moment 10 may occur il means
Ind methods are nor promptly taken to
prevent IL. Gentlemen, there is no,
lay TO lose in doing your duty.
rHE BEHRING SEA DISPUTE.
The new and latest phase Of the
Behring Sea dispute is the most promi-
nent topic just Now in and out of Wash
'oston- The correspondent Of the Bo,-
ton Globe says: The action Of the United
States Supreme Court in deciding 10
hear arguments on the application for a
writ OF prohibition in the Sayward case
gives the first round in the legal battle I
To- the British side and is a good dea, of |
a defeat for Mr.. Blaine This view of /
the case is taken here. aud even the .
most ardent friends Of the Secretary Of /
state cannot conceal their ANNOYANCE.
When the case FIRST came TO the court
Do was Semi-oficially given out that Mr..
Blaine had no fear Of the result. and
was hot at all worried. Chairman Hit.
OF the Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr..
Blaine's mOuthpiece iu the House Of
Representatives. was certain that the
ease would at once be thrown out of
court, as the bench would decide il had
no jurisdiction.
While the decision of the court does
not Unnecessarily determine that the writ
OF prohibition will issue, it settles
the question OF Jurisdiction, and in the
opinion OF lawyers il is presumptive ev-
idence that the British government has
a good deal Of ease, otherwise the
matter would have been summarily dis
posed OF.
Whatever the final issue, the whole
Behring Sea controversy will be dis
cussed in the court, and until the de-
ciSion is announced it is believed that
no further effort will be made to resume
diplomatic negotiations.
The Interest has become so general
in the revised form OF this important
case that the following clear synopsis
of the circumstances leading up to the
application for writ Of prohibition.
and the cause for It's issuance by the
court, merits pcruSai:
Among other cases passed upon was
| preliminary phase Of the Behring Sea CON
troversy. Counsel for the owner Of the
I British schooner Sayward and for the
/ British Government, three weeks ago.
/ asked leave Of the Court 10 file petition
alleging that the schooner Sayward had
| been seized on the high seas more than
I three miles from shore la Behring Sea. and
I out OF the jurisdiction OF the United States.
| had been carried into Sitka, Alaska. and
there had been condemned by the District
Court of ALASKA as forfeit 30 the United
States for the alleged Ofense OF taking
seals 10 the waters Of Behring Sea. al
NAWH-4 NlNN Aa4A NANNNl WtNll MlLnlfl tue NlllN
diCtiOu Of the Court or the country the
Alaska Court was wholly without urisdic-
ton 90 make decree c0ndcmniug the
schooner, and that the Court was now
about 20 enforce this decree. The petition
PRAYED that rule might issue 20 the Judge
Ot the Alaska Court requiring him 10 show
cause why writ OF prOhibitio should not
20 from the Supreme Court 10 him, COM
mandiug him % stop his proceeding 10 en-
Z force the decree OF condemnation as an ex-
| cess OF jurisdiction. and that upon "a return
I by the Judge 90 the rule, such "A writ of
prohibition might dnaliy issue.
The counsel FOR the Government. Attor-
ncy General Miller, opposed even the filing
of the petition, on three grounds. First,
that the supreme Court was not given
power under the statutes 90 issue a writ OF
I prohibition I'M ANY case 20 the District
| Court OF Alaska, that such power was only
given over District Courts Of the United
States, and the Alaska Court was not such
a Court. Second, that even II the Supreme
/ Court had such power, il could not exercise
10 here, because a transcript of the record
on appeal in this same case, which was
upon the files of tbs Supreme Court,
showed that no question Of jurisdiction
could be raised, because IL showed conclu-
sively that the Court below had iurisdic-
ton Thiri, that even IL all the facts
stated iu the petition were true the ques-
tion was one OF Territorial jurisdiction of
tho United States in the Behring Sea, that
this was political question for the execu-
tive department OF the Government TO de-
eide. that the Executive had decided that
the United States had territorial jurisdic-
ton over Bohring Sea 90 the extent ut
least of preserving It's seal fisheries. and
that by This decision the Supreme Court
ami all other Courts OF this nation were
bound
The Supreme Court decided that the
statutes gave TO power 10 issue writ OF
prohibition 10 the District Court Of Alaska,
that this was The only question which II
would consider before allowing the petit
tiOn % be filed. and that therefore the petit
ton might bc filed and rule might issue
20 the Judge of Alaska % show cause why
the writ should not 20 against them. The
other objections. the secOgt and third
above stated. the Court held, could only
be properly considered and decided after
the judge had made his return 20 the rule
90 show cause. All that is decided vet,
therefore. IS that if the petitioners can
make "a good case. the Court has power 20
issue the writ Whether the Court will
consider the Bcring Sea question rs an M
ternational question is still undecided, and
will remain so until the return or answer
Of the Alaska Judge has been made, and
the issue is thus fully brought before the
Court.