New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-02-03
rBY TELEGRAPH TO TIE -RIBUNE.1 =


IBY TELEGRAPH TO TIE -RBUNE1
Washington, Feb 2.-The Supreme Court or the
United States decided to-day TO permit conhei
representing the British Government to file an
application for writ Of prohibition to prevent
the District Court of Alaska from proceeding to
carry out it's decree OF forfeiture made In the
case of the schooner Sayward. libclled for un-
lawfully taking seals within the waters of the
Behrng Sea. The decision of the court was
announced by Chief Justice Fuller and created
little if any excitement among the audience ol
lawyers which had gathered in the chamber IN
the anticipation that the application OF counSei
for the British Government would be disposed OF
IN some way or other to-day.
In announcing the determination of the court,
the Chief Justice said that the argument SUD-
mitted to the court had taken much wider range
than was necessary and also that the court was OF
the opinion that it had jurisdiction by way of pro-
hbiton. under Section GsS, Revised Statutes, to
review the proceedings of the Alaska court To
botn of these statements made by the court more
than ordinary significance is believed to attach.
The former Is thought 70 Indicate that the court
will refuse 10 hear arguments on any point IN
volved in pending diplomatic negotiations. The
latter is looked upon SuppIcmcnting the former
and as simply designed to establish the jurisdc-
tlon of the court, point about which heretofore
there seemed some dispute. The section of the
Revised Statutes referred TO reads as follows:
Sec 0ss The supreme Court shall have POWER to issue
writs Of prohibition in the district courts when proceed
Ing admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction and
Of uanGamus in case, warranted by the principles
and oi law. to any courts appointed under tho
authority Of the United States. to p,r,onS holding office
undo" tn" authority of the United states wherc state or
AN ambassador other public minister or consul or
'ic"con,u IS party.
The Court asked counsel at what date the rule
requiring the Alaska court 10 come here and show
cause why the writ of prohibition should not is
sue should b" made returnablc The Solicitor
General of tie United States was anxious TO have
il made rcturn3blr at the earliest possible date,
Calderon Carlisle, jr., counsel for the par
ties who bring the ease here, and by mutual
agreement the rue was made rciurnab.c the soc
ond Monday in April This settles merely the
preliminary question Of the right 10 bring the ca,c
into court. and the matter now TO be determined
is whether or not the court will decide that the
writ of prohibition should issue
While IL is not denied that the decision Of the
court was to some extent a surprise TO the Attor-
ney-Gcncrl there is excellent authority for stating
that at the State Department tins now phase in the
Bohrilc Sea- dispute is not giving rise either t0
appr.l cu>on or alarm On the contrary, Mr..
Blaine is understood to regard the course taken by
the court 10 be- the result of desire simply 10 give
the opposins side no reason for complaining here
after that it has not had every opportunity, within
the proper limits, Of presenting It's case. rs Sdch
If Is believed that lie commends ii most warmly.
Jf course he will maintain, and Justly So That the
decision of the court to-day doesn't touch any OF
the point, involved IN dispute between the two
t;oyrrumcuts. and it simply is to be regarded
as manifcstirg disposition 10 lie more thah
courteous toward an opponent. II Is wen
known that Mr. Blaine Is stA "ilihG
4, submit T., the supreme Court the whole dis
putc for .rbrratIon. providing hc has 3n oppoE-
iurity - submit. not simply a single law pom,
~ ;, dom. Ir tl.r present c1so, whrrr the court
%. asked f. decade fine legality of seizure Iho!dc
Tie three. mile 'imii, bat the ci.;rc question III
v,l.iu.. .,r,nYp man, other thing, definition ol
q. jurisdiction c>crclSrd bv Russ2 IN B"hrlnS
Sea and It's legality: her power u dispose ol sue.
ri,bt,. if ri.iirs they were; the exact nature Of
the jurisdiction Acquired 10y the mica Ntl'eS
t..ctlcr with all historical and not merely legal
GFIt~ t.rovll uuon tir' subject the und spui"d
jurisdiction ior many years oi Inc / hl'cd STATES
IN that ,rl. Ttc. ~. ~ - ,l.,.,
If Mr. I.-rinc bad guarantee that all oi these
poin'. would be- Submitted 80 the court, anu i'r-
ihoriu,rr tina, t.r Iriti~h GOVcrnn"nt would a-r1'
=, hind if.alC hv the decision of Such trlhHAal,
and ina, n would not. IN ~" present case an
uo,rcc nm, Nicilllv that II will disregard the de-
oisnu of hc court. according ms II suits lis con
ycuicncr nr not, be- would hr wiling enoush 10
accent the arbitration of tie Supreme Court