The record-union., 1891-11-10
Special to the REcoRD-US1ov.

/ Special to the RECORD-UNIoN.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9.-The United
States Supreme Court Chamber was
crowded this morning with distinguished
members Of the bar, present to hear ar
guments in the Sayward Behring Sea
sealery case. Ex-Secretary Bayard and
eX-Attorney-Gene Garland of ex-
| President Cleveland's Cabinet, ex-Sen-
| ator Edmunds, Senator Mitchell of Ore
gon, Representative Springer of Illinois
and others were present, beside Attor-
! ney-General Miller, Solicitor General
Taft, Joseph II. Choate of New York
and others, who viii take part in the ar
gument.
When court assembled Justice Bradley
was not present, but he arrived and took
his place on the bench just before the
Sayward case was called, so the full court
was present when the hearing began.
| This celebrated case arises out of the
seizure Of the Canadian sealer w. 2. Say
ward in Behring Sea for a violation of the
Act Of Congress making it a penalty to
| catch seals within the waters Of Behring
| Sea. The vessel was Ebeled under the
admiralty laws of the United States, and
after trial the United States District
| Court Of Alaska declared the forfeiture of
| the vessel.
The case was then brought to this
| court on motion for writ of prohibition
to stop the Alaskan court from taking
| measures to enforce the Decree the
ground for the motion being the conten-
! ton that the court had no Jurisdiction TO
! try the offenSe, for the reason that 1t was
| committed more than three miles from
! shore, and therefore under the law Of the
nations, without the jurisdiction of the
| United States. By this method it is
| sought to secure an opinion from the
court on question which has been for n
! long time in controversy between the
! United States and Great Britain as to the
right of the former country to the eX-
elusive control of the seal fisheries in
! Behring Sea.
The opening skirmish in the legal bat
| tie resulted in favor of Great Britain the
court deciding against the preliminary
! plea by the United States that the Su-
preme Court could not entertain even a
| motion for leave to file petition for a
writ of prohibition. Since the legal pro-
ceedings began an agreement has been
reached between the two Governments
under which it is hoped to secure a final
and definite solution of the long-pending
diplomatic dispute. but this will not ef-
| feet the present case.
Calderon Carlisle of this city opened
the case in behalf of the owner OF the Say
| ward. At the outset he said the decision
of this case could not forestall anything
| any other branch of the Government
| should do. "Of course,'' he said, sit will
| stop any seizure of any foreign vessel un-
der any existing law. This court may in
this case, without expressing any opinion
as to the rights Of the United States, hold
| that the seizure of this foreign vessel
! fify-nine miles from land was illegal un-
Jcx.S into low i
! listing law OF the United States, and not
| forestall any convention of the United
States with reference to the seal prop
erty."
Carlisle combatted the position taken
! by the United States that this court was
| bound by the face of the proceedings, and
/ could not go behind what was shown on
the record submitted by the Judge of the
| Alaska court. First, taking up the words
! Of the libel, which sets out that the vessel
was seized in this part of Behring 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 ceSsiOn from anybody, it was a cession
| from the civilized world, for Russia could
not cede beyond three miles from shore.
Carlisle next took up the point raised
! by the United States, that if the court
could go behind ihe return of the Alaska
! Judge, there is no evidence which it NAV
| be presumed might have justified the
! court in holding that the seals were
taken within the three-mile limit. The
! Attorney General, Carlisle said, in addi-
! ton to the two small barriers of which
| he had spoken, had set up another more
serious one, namely, that the position
taken by the Executive with reference to
| Behring Sea was position taken on
! political question, that of national sover-
| eighty, which absolutely binds the court.
| whether that position be right or wrong.
! If the argument be correct, that regard
! less Of the law of the nations and the act
of Congress, the President can extend
| the national boundaries far out into the
ocean, it Shall stop there, and not make
| assertions as to their power and right
which would, in the language of Justice
Storey, lead to universal mischief.
/ He then asked why, if the United
States could try British sealers in any of
waters, it could not try British sailors
for murder? He claimed that a writ of
prohibition must be issued, because of
the fundamental want Of jurisdiction in
the Alaska court.
Solicitor-General Taft, in opening the
case for the United States said its posi-
ton could be stated in two sentences.
| First, the question which petitioner
| seeks hereto raise is not presented to the
court on the record in the case. Second.
| that If 1t IS presented to the court, the
question has been decided, being polit-
ical question by political departments of
! the Government, and the court will not
reverse or qualify that decision.
Taking up the political phase of the ar
gument, the Solicitor-General said the
Government did not deny that the iuris-
diction of the Alaskan court and the
venue of the offense were judicial ques-
tions TO be decided by that court. and by
this court in proper cases. What he as
serted was that the jurisdiction of that
court and the venue of the offense by
single step was made meritably to de-
pend upon national jurisdiction in Behr-
ing Sea. That is a political question, and
the decision of the executive and of
Congress on that political question is
conclusive, not only upon this court. but
upon every citizen within its jurisdiction.
THE VALPARAISO INCIDENT.