The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-11-10
THE SAYwARD CASE.

Supreme Court-sIr. Taft's Argument
Special TO the Indianapolis Journal
WASHINGTON. Nov. 9.-lnterest in the
Sayward, or Behring sea case. involving
important points in the controversy be-
tween the United States and Great Britain
concerning the right of jurisdiction in
Behring sea, brought an unusual number of
people to the chamber of the federal Su-
preme Court to hear the arguments of the
contending parties. Ex-Secretary Bayard
and ex-senator Edmunds sat within the
bar and gave close attention to what was
said. A number of other distinguished
lawyers were present and every member
of the court was in his seat. Attorney
general Miller and Solicitor general Taft
represented the United States. while
Calderon Carlisle. of Washing gton. and
Joseph III. Choate, of New York, appea red
for the British government.
schooner II. w. Sayward. o Canadian ves-
sci seized by the United States in Behring
sea for illegal sealing. supposedly nine
miles from any shore. The Sayward was
Hbeied by the United States District Court
of Alaska for taking seal IN violation of
the statutes of the United States, and the
case came to the Supreme Court upon writ
of prohibition against the Alaskan court,
upon the grounds that the vessel was seized
outside the jurisdiction of the United
States over waters of the Behring sea. The
government when the case first came be-
fore the Supreme Court, denied the Jurls-
dictiOn of the court to consider the applica-
tion for q writ of prohibition, bnt the court
held adversely. Briefs were filed by both
parties and the case came up for argument
to-day on it's merits.
Mr. Carlisle opened the case for the
British government shortly before clock.
l. a nras4 <f
the court ne said. could interfere with the
independence of Congress. The court
could, without expressing an opinion on
the question of protecting seals, render n
decision on the question OF nine-mlle
limit. He claimed that the Alaskan judge. be-
fore he signed his decree In the case, placed
upon evidence an opinion that warranted
him then and there in dismissing It. Mr..
Carlisle contended that in the exercise of
power conferred on the Supreme Court to
directed to revise the position of the court
below. The Supreme Court LIE said, was
superior court. calling to account an in
ferior court that had exceeded its authority.
He made further argument that the United
States supreme Court had Jurisdiction
over all other courts. The Supreme
Court, lie said. could 60 deeper into
the case thanl merely acting on the face of
the papers presented TO 1t certifying the
decision of the Alaska court. The colrt
must not ignore the facts it must not sim
ply examine the records, and he quoted an
opinion in support of this contention. He
believed, he said, that the case depended
on the decision of question of law as TO
whether the Revised Statutes forbade the
killing of seal. The limits of marine terri
tory in Behring sea were not fixed, he said.
by the Russian treaty, but by the law of
nations, and il was an absolute provision
of that law that this Jurisdiction could not
be changed excepting by concurrence of
nations. The Attorney general had lost
sight of q most important point in the case.
He claimed that the question was politi-
law. A question that involved the liberty
and property of foreign people could never
be political question.
Solicitor general Taft followed for the
United States. He held that the seizure
was made In the waters of Alaska and in
that portion of Behring sea belonging to
the United States. The other side denied
this but the statute of March 3, 1889, set
tied that the United States had jurisdiction.
Mr.. Taft devoted considerable attenti to
the words face of tho proceedings" con-
tending that If there was want OF Jurisdio-
tion by the Alaskan court a statement os it
did not appear on the face of the proceed
lngs, and the court was not called on TO de-
eide except on them. He cited decisions of
English courts to provo that unless the
point at issue was stated on the face of the
proceedings prohibition could not issue,
and he insisted that the Alaskan courts
finding was conclusive. 1t could not prove,
he said, that the Sayward, when seized. was
not within the three-leaguc limit. The
government, he said. did not deny that the
Jurisdiction of the district court of Alaska
and the venue of otfense were judicial ques-
tions, but it maintained that the question
at issue was political one.
Tomorrow Mr.. Choate will close the argu-
ment for the British government. and At
torney- -gendA Miller will close for the
United States.