Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-11-10
u. s. SUPREME COURT.
Distinguished Members ~ the Bar
Present 10 Hear the Arguments
In the "sayward" Casr.
rHE rUtL COURT PRCsrEr ~
.rHr NEARING.


w Tcienapt 20 the ssvA
CrIrnnArID CAsU
Arguments nrf,re the 4. =. supreme
gouFf.
WAHlfsuIuN, Nov. g.-Thr United
SlAtur Supreme Court Chamiur was
crowded this morning; distinguished
members Oi the bar were present 90
hear arguments In the "liaywnri"
huriug sea sUalurs' case. EK.Srurcilfy
Bayafd aud cN-Attoruey-Gcnpf Gar.
land, Of President Clevcland's Cabinet,
ex-senator Edmunda, senator Mitchell
" Oregon, Representative Stringur Ui
Illinois aud Othrfs were present, he.
ridca Attorney General Miller, -0iici.
tor General TAFT, joseph Choatt " New
loTk, anu others who will takc part In
the apumuut. When the court ~.
nrmhlcd, Justice Bmdley was not prts.
cnt. hut he arrived anu tool, his place
pn the bench juft before tho Haywad
casc was called, No the full court was
present when the hearing began.
TINS cELrnuArED CASH
arises out OF tho seizure of the Cana.
dian seslur "W. - Saywarl,n in
Bohtlng ia, fora violation n the act
Of Congress making II penalty 10
catch seals within the waters Of Bchf.
ing sea. The vessel was libClcd under
the laws Of the United States, AMI,
after trial, the United States district
court Of Alaska declared n forfeiture Of
the vCmel. The case was then brought
~ this court on motion of writ Of
prohibition to stop the Alaskan court
| from taxing measures 20 cniufru the
decree, the ground Tor the motion be.
ina the contention that the court had
no jurisdiction 10 try the uilcnsc, f1f
the reason that Il Wa committed more
than three miles from shore, nni,
/ thurcfOtc, under the Law Of nations,
/ without the juri dictiou Of thr United
/ States. ~ this method u 81 sought 10
secure an opinion from the court on
| the question which hns been for long
/ timu In cIntrnvcrby between the
/ United States aud Great Britain NJ 90
the ii hi Of the former conntry e. the
exclusive seal fisheries Of Behring sea.
THE orENISG siIRMisu
In this legal battle resulted la favor Of
Great Britain, the court deciding
Against the preliminary plea VI the
United Statet, that the supreme court
could not entertain even motion Tor
leave 10 file petition for writ Of pro-
hibitlon, and since the legal ptoc.cd-
ing began, an agreement has been
reached between the two governments,
under which Il is hoped 10 secure
final and definite solution of tho long
pending diplomatic dispute. But this
| viii not sliect the present case.
CgldeTou Carlisle Of this city opened
the case Ia hOhElt Of tire uw aer " tue
"saywArd." AZ the outset he said
that thu decision Of this ease could not
iOfrstall anything any other branch u
the government should do. OF course,
he said, II win stop any seizure ~ any
foreign vessel under any existing law.
This court may len this ease, without
expressing any opinion w. 10 the rights
Of the United States, hold that tho seiI.
ufp OF this foreign vessel nny-ulup
miles from iaud, wis Illegal under In.
trfuutlunul laws aud under existing
laws Of the United States, AMI not
lo'rftall any convention Of the United
States with reference 10 seal property.
CARLISLE coMn,rED
the position taken by the United States
that this court was bound by the face
OF the proceedings aud could not go
behind what was shown on the record
submitted by the Judge Of the Alaska
court la the first taking upwards VI the
llbol, which sets out: "Thu vessel was
teissd In that part OF Behang SEA
c,drd by Russia to the United 5tatcs."
lie said II might very we'll bee held
that no part OF II was Ccdod by Russia
llf Il was cossion from anybody, II
was cession from the civilized world,
Tor Russln could not code beyond three
miles from the shore. Carlisle next
tool up the point raised by tho United
states that II the court could 70 behind
the return Of the Alaska judge, there
was evidence which, II may be pre-
sumed, might have Justified tho court
In holding that the seals were taken
within the thfee-mile limit.
The Attorney.general, Carlisle, said,
In addition ~ the two small barriers o.
which he had spoken, had set up an-
other more serious one, namely, that the
position taken by the Executive with
reference TO Buhring sen was posi-
ton taken ON political question
that VI National sovereignty which
absolutely binds tho court, whether
! THAI IN-lllbll ~ llHl4A VI WNNHhs ~ llt
argument be correct that, Togardle., Of
the law " nations and an act Of Con-
gtuas, tho President can extend the
National boundaries
FAR OUT INTO THE OCEAN,
shall he stop there aud not make rs
srrtiOns a. 10 our power anu right,
which would, In the language OF
Justice Storey, lead TO universal mis-
chief He then asked why, n the
United States could try British ssalorr
Tor offrnses w any Of these waters,
why not British sailors for murder
lie claimed that a writ Of prohibition
must issue because Of the fundamental
want OF Jurisdiction In the Alaska
court.
Solicitor General l.ailln, In opening
the case for the United States, said
its position could he stated In
two sentences. First, that the
question which the petitioner seeks
here TO raise Il not presented 10 tho
court on the record In tho case; second,
that II tis presented 10 the court, the
question has been decided, being \ POI
itical question, by tho political de.
partmont OF the government, and the
court viii not reverse OF qualify that
decision. Taking up the political
phaio OF the argument, the solicitor
general said thht the government did
not deny that the Jurisdiction of the
Alaskan court and the venue Of The OF,
Tense were judicial quostions 10 be de.
cided by that court and by this court In