New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-11-10
1.-THE SAYWARD CASE.
/. HEARING BY TIE SUPREME COURT.
.,osvrNrs By. cADDnRoN CARLISLE Fob THE
SHIPS OWNER AND BY SOLICITOR
GENERAL TAFT.


u.sh;nrsah Nov. 9.zThe supreme Court chamber
-.ou,dea his morning with distinguished members
har r-rsent 20 hear arguments In the celebrated
% a Thomas Henry Cooper against tho Judge Of the
80 STATES Court for The District OF Alaska better
- a. the Sayward Behring Sea sealeries case
. seeretary Baysrd and ex-AtforDey General Garisnd
rssdent Clevelana's CnbiHet; ex-senator Edmunds,
.,.,or Mitchell Of oregon; Representative Springer
,rsoo. and Others were present., besides Attorney
..- Miller Solicitor General Taft. Joseph H. Choate'
xsr York and Others who will ts&e part in, the
augment. fnh eouft was present VINO" ''' "o'''"'
segaD. ,. -, Al. Csnaa,a,
W p saywaTd in Behring sea for violation OF the
a congress making ii a penalty 10 catch seals
.,p the waters Of BehrinG sea- The vessei WAS
800 unaer the admiralty laws of the United states.
"a st-er trial the United states District Court on
-. declared forfeiture Of the vessel The case
AS" - b-oucht 10 this cogrt ON n motion for a writ
N VIZ 10 stop the Alaskan court nom taking
s.,res 10 enforce It's decree the ground for this
80, beIpg contention that the court had no )uns-
10 N ivy the offence. for the reason that 1t was
u,,,ed more than three miles from shere aud there
- nnser che law Of nations. without the jurisdiction
:, ~. United states. By this method IL is sought TO
- an opinion from this court the question which
-. ,.sn for long time in controversy between tile
800 stes and Great Britain as to the right Of the
,ptrv 10 exclusive control Of the seal fisheries
Ia Behrng sea.
c,..ron Carlisle Of this city, opened the case IN
- =, the owner Of the Ssyward Az the outset he
"a mt The decision Of this case could not forcsal
'-..hspg that auy other branch of the Government
go so THIS court might, in this case. without
.,pressng any opinion As to the nights OF the Onscd
- hold thai the seizure CT this foreign vessel fifty
80 ,u.s from land was Illegal under internstonsl
LIZ and nnAer existing law of the United states ana
-. .o,Astau ANY convention of the United states WHO
,.-o,ce 10 seal property. Mr.. Carlisle tTn conp@t
- ~. N-s, position taken by the United states, inst
"a, ,,sI was bound by the face OF the proceedings
"a oond no, 70 behind what vas shown on the RECORD
. srbn,.,,a BY the judgs d the Alaska court fnst
- mn N. words of the noel which sets out that
on. vessel was seized in that part Of Hshnng Sea
- nv Russia 10 the United States he said II mig
~ 10 hold that no part Of 1t was coded BY Rtssis
-, s- oession from anybody, II was oession from
,na civilized world, for Russia could not ceHe oesoho
,n-sa Mills from shore. Mr.. Carlisle said that ~ wae
s-cuoo hat the Alaska Judge might have founded
~ Judgment Oh the theory thst it was within ohe
three-mile limit.
ra,.t Justice Fuller inquired il the ALASKA !uoee
-. s.sed 10 find Is fact where the seizure was
r,.ss Mr. Carlisle nped in the negative, but cameo
..n,,on 70 the fact that under statute law an ad-
,'-.l,r ,udce has no business finding any facts-he
,r,nv ales his decree and decides the motions MADE
u. then argued that The Alaska Judge hsa orought 10
MS mind either By evidence or by the demurrer OF tne
savvars counsel the very proposition on "hlch '4o
cour should have dismissed the case for want OF Iu's
otoo and that this court in the exercise OF Us power
N issrpe wits 81 prohibition % district courts wa
directly revising the proceedings Of the court beo" ara
conld examine the evidence and all TIE proceedings
spd call this inferior court account for exceeding lte
tur di ton He insisted that everything the AsSKa
court considered In arriving al it's cshcusoh couu De
considered BY this court, and he knew Of DO principe
Of lay or any decision which could deprive IL OF tha
right.
Mr. Carlisle next took up the point raised by the
United States that II the court could go behind the
sturn n. the Alaska fudge there was evidence which,
4, might be presumed might have justified the court
in holding that seals were taken within the threeme
limit lie read from records In another case to sho"
that the court bad held thst Russia had ceded TO the
United States the whole territory east OF the 1880
meridian and he held that there was nothing on WHICH
TO base the Governments claim in this matter OF the
three-nlle unit. The Attorney General, Mr. Carlisle
said in addition to the small barriers Of which ne
had spoken. had set up another more serious one,
namely that the position taken by the Executive with
reference 10 BehFing sea was position taken on
political question that Of National sovereignty. which
absolutely binds the whether that position be
light or wrong. The Acknowledgement was 50 sure OF
II that he had declined to 90 into the legality and cor
OF the position taken by the President in the
49,"
II ended the decision Of the court IN every case in which
,ba PRESIDENT takes position a so-called political
oueston Hs did no; question the just powers Oh the
Executive but here were the plain words OF an ac'
OF Congress In which there was not one Syllable giving
srv discretion 10 the President nor Imposing any uu'S
upon him to decide What were the limits OF Aiasha
Thus the question Of jun sdiction was kft III the Hrs
In stance 10 the Alaska court and then 10 t cou'
n every statute containing general words The con-
q, dino
could not change or define the meaning Oh an "'' Va
Congress or bind the judiciary
Tie tornay-General took the position that uis
was question Of territorial. sovereignty as TO WHICH n
PRESIDENT was actually inialble II the argument y
correct that regardless Of the law OF Iauohs anu u"
act Of Congress. the President could eX'eho 'ue
National boundaries far into tie ocean, why shouio
hA son there and not make assertions as 10 our power
AID right which would, in the language OF JUSTICE
story lead 10 universal mischief
He then asked why. 4 the United states could TRY
British sers for offences In any of these waters why
not British sailors fur murder The only theoFy on
witch the limited states could raise any claim was
Tat it had specisI rights 10 seal life growing out Oh
The ovuer.hlp Of the PribylOf Islands, ana ne redn
from al eminent American pubhcist ti"t speoA'"
claims over anv terrory had ceased 10 exist ana was
merely relic Of barbarous times. lie therefore c--heO
that the writ Of prohibition must issue because OF ''
fundamental want Of jurisdiction ID ue AldsAa '"'
Solicitor res eral Taft in opening the case TOT 'he
UDited States -ld its position could be S~'eu III WV
sentences First H. al the question which the peuuoher
sess here 70 raise l. not presented 10 the cOUT on TIE
record In the case second that II it Is presented 10
tie court, the question has been decided belng q
political question by the political departments OF tne
Government and this court will not reverse or quai'
that decision. The express finding on the noeis' ne
continued was that the seals were taken In the wsois
u Alaska and that portion OF BehEhg 0e@
which belongs 10 the United state, theIe
were any part Of Behring sea when beongee I" 'i'e
United states and that three miles from shore was
United states territory was not disputed and the libel
t1c the taking Of seals within United States territory
n Behrng sea- and the finding supported those aver
nens he submitted that IL the court was limited 70
that record no want of jurisdiction appeared upon the
tsee Of the proceedings The difference between coun-
sci for TIE other side and himself to the meaning