Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1891-11-10
THE SEALING CASE.
An International Matter Before
the Supreme Court.
OUR PRIVILEGES IN BEHRING SEA.

Questions Congress viii Have to Set
tie When 1t Meets, and Which Will
Probably Make Things LiveIy-MilIs
and Springer Have Views on Tariff
Legislation Which Do Not "Consist''-
Capital Items.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10-The case of the
schooner Sayward VS.. the United States,
involving the settlement of important
points connected with the Behring sea
controversy, was called for argument be-
fore the United States supreme court yes
terday afternoon. All the justices of the
court were present. Calderon Carlisle, of
Washington, opened the case for the Brit
lsh government. He contended that the
supreme court had a right to go into the
merits OF the case, and to give an opinion
on the extent of the jurisdiction of the
United States in Behring sea. Thescase
was not political one, as claimed by the
attorney general, but an international
one
Wants a Decision on the 59-MiIe Limit.
In Celebrating his argument Carlisle
said that no decision of the court could
interfere with the independence of con-
gress. The court could, without express
Ing any opinion on the question of
protecting seals, render deci-
sion on the question of a
fifty-nine mile limit. He claimed that the
Alaskan judge before he signed his de-
cree in the case placed upon evidence an
opinion that warranted him then and
there in dismissing it. Carlisle contended
that in the exercise of power conferred on
the supreme court to issue writs of prohi-
bition the court was directed to revise the
position of the court below. The supreme
court, he said, was a superior court call
ing to account an inferior court that had
exceeded its authority.
Not Limited by the Papers
He made further argument that the
United States supreme court had juris-
diction over all other courts. The supreme
court, he said, could go deeper into the
case than merely acting on the face of the
papers presented to it certifying the
decision of the Alaska court The court
must not ignore the facts; it must not
simply examine the records, and he quoted
an opinion in support of this contention.
He believed, he said, that the case de-
pended on the decision of question of
law as to whether the revised statutes
forbade the killing of seal
Is Not a Political Question.
The limits of marine territory in Beh-
ring sea were not fixed, he said, by the
Russian treaty, but by the law of nations,
and it was an absolute provision of that
law that this jurisdiction could not be
changed, excepting by the concurrence of
nations. The attorney general had lost
sight of most important point in the
case. He claimed that the question was
political one, and did not involve inter-
national law. A question that involved
the liberty and property Of foreign people
could never be a political question.
The Governments Position Stated.
Solicitor General Taft followed for the
United States. He contended that the
case was a political one, and that the
court had no authority to Judge of it ex-
cept on the face of the proceedings" Ger
titled by the Alaska court, before which
the case came first. The face of the pro-
eeedings" did not, he said, show that there
was want of jurisdiction by the Alaska
court, and therefore that question should
not be touched on.
Stands Upon the Statutes.
He alleged that the seizure was made in
the waters of Alaska, and in that portion of
Behring sea belonging to the United States
The other 81 denied this, but the statute
Of March 3, 1854, settled that the United
States had jurisdiction. He cited decisions
of English courts to prove that unless the
point at issue was stated on the face of
the proceedings, prohibition could not
issue, and he insisted that the Alaska
courts finding was conclusive. 1t could
not be proven, he said, that the Sayward
when seized was not within the three
league limit. The government, he said,
Il ,1t hot tha rt. - Il