, 1891-11-10
A SEAL FISHERY FUSS.
U. S. Supreme Court PrYing
Into the Controversy.
Able Attorneys Expound the
Legal Ethics of the Quarrel.
The Seizure of a Vessel by
Uncle Sam the Cause.
A Great Legal Fight.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9.-When the
United States supreme court assembled
this morning Justice Bradley was not
present, but he arrived and took his place
on the bench just before the Savward
case was called, so there was a full court
present when the hearing began. This
celebrated case arises out of the seizure of
the Canadian sealer W. P. Ssyward, in
the Boring sea, for a violation of the act
of congress making it a penalty to catch
seals within the waters of Boring sea.
The vessel was libeled under the ad-
miralty laws of the United States and
after a trial the United States district
court of Alaska declared a forfeiture OF
the vessel. The case was then brought
to the supreme court of this country on a
motion for a writ of prohibition to stop
the Alaskan court from taking measures
to enforce the decree. the ground for a
motion being a contention that the court
had no jurisdiction to try the offense for
the reason that it was committed more
than three miles from the shore and
therefo~e under international law was
without the Jurisdiction of the United
States.
By this method it is sought to secure
the opinion from the court on the aues-
ton which has been for a long time in
controversy between, the United States
and Great Britain as to the right OF the
former country to the exclusive control of
the seal fisheries in Boring sea. The
opening skirmish in his legal battle re
suited in favor OF Great Britain, the court
deciding against the preliminary plea
by the United States that the supreme
court could not entertain even a motion
tor leave to file a petition for writ of pro-
hibition.
Since legal proceedings began an agree
ment has been reached between the W
governments under which it Is hoped to
secure a final and definite solution Of the
long pending diplomatic dispute, but this
will not affect the present case. Calderon
Carlisle of this city. opened the case in
behalf the owner of the Sayward. At the
outset he said the denision Of this case
could not forestall anything that any
other branch of the government could.
OF course, he said, it will stop any seizure
of any foreign vessel under any existing
law.
This court may in this case without ex
pressing any opinion as to the rights-.of
the United States hold that the seizure OF
this foreifn vessel ffiy-nine miles from
land was illegal under international law
and under existing laws of the United
States and not ~forestall any convention OF
the United States with reference to seal
property. Carlisle combatted the posi-
ton taken by the United States that this
court was bound by each Of the proceed.
iugs aud could not go behind what was
shown on the record submitted by the
Judge of an Alaska court.
First taking up the words OF libel which
sets out 1.-THE vessel was seized in that
part of Bering sea ceded by Russia to the
United States" He said it might very
well be held that no part of it was ceded
by Russia. If it was a cessation from
anybody it was a cessation from the civil
hzed world, for Russia could not cede be
yond three miles from her shore.
Carlisla next took up the point raised
bv the United States that if the court
would examine the return of the Alaska
Judge. there was evidence which it may
be presumed might have justified the
court in holding that the seals were taken
within The three mile limit. Attorney
General Carlisle said that IN addition to
the two small barriers of which he had
spoken, be had set up another and more
serious one. namely, that the position
taken BY the executive with reference to
Bering sea was a position taken on a
political question, that of national sover-
eigntv, which absolutely binds the court
whether that position be right or wrong.
If that argument be correct that re-
gardless of the law of nations and the act
of congress the president can extend the
national boundaries far out into the ocean
and shall be stopped there and not make
assertions as to our power and right which
would, in the language of Justice Storey.
lead to universal mischief. He then
asked whv ii the United States could try
British ~sealcrs for o~ffenses in any of these
waters, why not British sailors for muir
der2 He claimed a writ of prohibition
must ISSUE because of the fundamental
want Of jurisdiction in the Alaska court.
Solicitor General Taft in opening the
case for the United States said his posi-
ton could be stated in two sentences:
First, that the question which the petl
toner seeks here to raise is not presented
to the court on the record In the case.
Second. that if it is presented to the
court after the question has been decided,
being a political question. by the political
departments OF the government the court
would not reverse or qualify that decision.
Taking up the political phase OF the
argument, Solicitor General TAFT said the
government did not deny that the iuris-
dIction OF the Alaskan court and venue of
offense were judicial questions to be
decided by that court and by this court in
a proper way, what he asserted was that
the jurisdiction OF that court and venue of
the offense by a single step was made
inevitably to depend upon the national
jurisdiction in Boring sea, that is the
political question and that the decision of
the executive and of congress on that
political question is conclusive not only
upon this court but upon every citizen
within the jurisdiction.
A Favonte Remedy.