Los Angeles herald., 1891-04-26
THE SAYWARD CASE.
Its Hearing Postponed Till
October 10Th.
Justice Bradley's Illness the
Cause Of Delay.
Counsel for Both Governments Pre-
pared to Proceed.
The Legal and Political Aspects of the
Case Thoroughly Reviewed In
the Lawyers Briefs.
Asso ociated Press Dispatches.

Associated Press Dispatches.
WASHINGTON, April 25.-The supreme
court has postponed hearing in the Say
ward and lottery cases until October
10th. the government and counsel rep
resenting the British government were
prepared to 60 on with the Sayward
case, involving jurisdiction over the
Bering sea, but the continued illness of
Justice Bradley caused the court to
order postponement, the full bench
being desired to hear case of SO much
Importance.
The briefs Of both sides are very vol
luminous. They may be divided into
two parts: First, legal argument in
volving the right to bring the case be-
fore the court in the rather unusual
form Of writ of prohibition; and Sec
ond, politico-legal argument involving
the relations between the departments
OF the government.
THE BRIEF OF THE GOVERNMENT.
In the brief of the government it is
maintained that the writ will not
under the law issue unless want OF juris-
diction is shown on the face OF the pro-
ceedings by which the forfeiture was
decreed, as the libel alleged jurisdiction
OF the property and the court found it.
1t is maintained that even if the United
States has not control over the waters
more than three miles from the shore,
the conclusion must necessarily be
drawn that the court found according to
what was the jurisdiction of the United
States, whatever that Jurisdiction may
be. Numerous authorities are cited in
support OF the denial OF the claim of
counsel for the British government that
the supreme court has the right to go
beyond the face of the returns and de-
termine whether or not the court
actually and rightly had jurisdiction to
try the offense. The point is made that
though the Alaska court is subject to
prohibition, it is not when sitting in
admiralty an inferior court in tech
nical sense, but superior court whose
DEGREES are entitled to every presump-
tion favorable to it's jurisdiction.
GREAT BRrTAIN's CONTENTION.
Counsel for Great Britain held that no
right of appeal lay from the Alaska
court to the supreme court in admiralty
cases, and that, therefore, the latter
court should exercise more extended
jurisdiction in prohibition after sem
tence than If the party had other rem
edy. This matter turned upon the
meaning OF the words, Gin other cases."
as used in the Alaska court, and it is
maintained that it is much too narrow
view to hold that by these words the
~ So nls1An AnI hn
power of review, and that it was really
intended by these words to give the
supreme court the same power of re-
view that it had over all other lower
courts.
Counsel for the United States then
contend that these things being true,
and the Alaska court having jurisdic-
tion over the offense alleged, and juris-
diction over the claimant by reason of
his voluntary appearance in the court,
it follows that the finding of the court
that the seal-killing was committed
within the jurisdiction of the United
States, is conclusive and cannot be inn
peached.
A great number Of authorities are
then cited as establishing the doctrine
that the finding of the Alaska court on
the matter of the fact of jurisdiction was
conclusive and that the petition for
prohibition must therefore be dis
missed, the supreme court having, it is
asserted, no power in collateral proceed
ings to retry and review evidence.
AS to the seizure of vessel on the
high seas, it is contended that any OBJ
jections based on an illegal seizure were
waived, and furthermore that even ii
the seizure were illegal, municipal
law having been violated, the court,
when it found the vessel-owner in its
Jurisdiction, had nothing to do with
how he came there, but solely with his
trial for violation of the law. Coun sci
do not admit that the seizure on the
high seas was unlawful, and cite from
supreme court decisions as establishing
the conclusive right of the United States
to seize vessels on the high seas for Of
lenses committed within places over
which this government had Jurisdiction.
THE POLITICAL ASPECT OF THE CASE.
This brings the argument down to the
political aspect of the case, and it is con-
tended with great force, supported by
citations from numerous decisions, that
the territorial Jurisdiction Of the United
States is a political question, from the
SoAoAuOi0tlOA "a WAlCl VuO COult 10
stopped by the action of the executive
and OF congress in deciding that the
United States has jurisdiction over the
waters where the Sayward was seized.
The decision of Justice Storey in the
Suffolk insurance case, counsel say, will
defeat the claim of the petitioner that
the executive has no power in himself,
without legislation, to decide question
OF sovereignty. The existence of such
power is made obvious. Moreover, the
act under which the seiznres were or
dered, directed the president to seize all
vessels taking seal in the waters OF the
Bering sea. How is the president to
execute this command of congress if he
does not determine for himself what
waters Of the Bering sea are within the
dominion of the United States? Could
congress- have made palmer it's wish that
he should decide?
UNCLE SANS JURISDICTION ATTESTED.
Counsel say numerous seizures attest
the fact that the executive has decided
that the United States has jurisdiction
over the Bering sea, and voluminous