The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-11-11
Attorney General Miller Tells the Supreme
Justices that URcle Sam and Britain VIII
Refer the Sealsries Case to lrbiters.
Concluding Arguments in the Suit Over
the POachfDg Schooner Sayward.
Mr.. Grosvenor Confident Senator Sherman
Will Be Re. .Elected-0utput Of the Mines
Two Billion Bushels Of Corn.
Arbitration AGREED ON.


WASHINGTON. Nov. 1o.-The public was
taken into the confidence of the diplomatic
branch of the government this afternoon
in the continuation of the hearing begun
yesterday before the United States Su-
preme Court in the case of the Canadian
sealer, w. p. Sayward, seized for illegal
sealing in BehrIng sea, by the first an
nouncement made that the prolonged dip
lomatIc correspondence between Secretary
Blaine and Lord Salisbury had resulted in
an agreement by which. with the consent
of the Senate. the long-pending dispute
over the seal fisheries in Behring sea will
be definitely settled.
Solicitor General Taft, who was address.
ing the court, made the first intimation
that the correspondence between the two
countries had reached the point of an agree
ment upon arbitration. He stopped ct this
point. aud, when Justice Gray desired some
more ex plicit statement as to whether an
agreement upon arbitration had been act
ually reached, the Solicitor General hesi-
tated TO reply and intimated that perhaps
he had revealed more than he. not being q
Cabinet officer and being authorized to
speak only on legal questions. should have
done. Thereupon Attorney General Miller
himself interposed and not only substan-
tlated all that the Solicitor General had
said, but went further and announced that
the government had effected an agreement
This was practically the first announce
ment made as to the progress of the Behring
sea negotiations since the last correspond
ence was made public. showing q differ
ence of opinion between the two govern
ments as to the points of arbitration.
1t was surprising that the news should
first come out in an argument in court. and
the Attorney general was asked after adj
journment if he would throw some light on
the subject. 1T is true that an agreement
upon arbitration has been reached" he
said. Yes" he added. "the matter has
been settled between the two governments,
that is, subject to ratification by the Sem
ate.n
what are the points of arbitrationi"
81 cannot say any more than i said in
| court Why don't you 90 TO the State De-
partmentf Yes You can state as n fact that
an agreement has been concluded"
| Solicitor general Taft was next seen. but
would only confirm what the Attorney
| general had said. I'm the last correspond
| ence. you know be said, there was sim
| ply difference between the two govern
| ments as to the points of arbitration. We'll,
| the correspondence since then has resulted
| in treaty, which now only needs TO be
ratified by the Senate"
The reporter suggested that it was some
thing unusual TO hear the announcement
| of such important news in an argument in
court. but it is a fact" was the response,
| laughingly bat positively gwen.
| Secretary Blaine positively declined %
| make any statement touching the matter.
PROBABLE COURSE THAT WILL BE TAKEN.
The inference drawn from the develop
ments to-day, including the statement
| made by the Attorny-ge general TO q repre-
| sentative of the press. as above given, Is
| that the President will submit to the Sem
| ate an agreement in the nature Of q treaty
between the United States and Great
Britain by which the parties bind them
selves to accept as final and conclusive the
| definition to be given by arbitrators, of the
exact rights of the United Statesin Behring
sea. as well to pay any awards or damages
| suffered by the Nation that is declared 70
| have held the true contention. Ii also pre-
| sumed that arbitrators have been selected,
| but none of the officials seen would discuss
the details of the agreement, doubtless for
the reason that it has to be submitted to
| the Senate for ratification, and therefore
| comes under the executive session rules OF
the Senate. which require secrecy to be OBJ
served.
| The announcement, impor tant as it was
| did not create thst amount of ibie inter.
| est that il would have created If made out.
side the Supreme Court chamber. Very
few present seemed to recognize the sig
nificance of the statement, and Mr. Taft
| went on with his argument as If nothing
| had happened. The action of Congress
passing the seizure act was. he said. con-
| irmation of the executives position on the
| question. and in conclusion he stated that
| the people of this country were confronted
with the position of tho United States,
which. after spending large amount TO
| protect the sealing industry. must now
| look on without power 20 lift hand TO
protect II. He closed by quoting from JUS
| tice Story opinion that the Supreme
Court could not entertain political Ques-
tions.
4 ATTORNEY GENERAL MILLER's ARGUMENT.
| Acknowledgement Miller followed Mr..
Taft in continuation of the argument for
the United States. He began by paying O
high tribute to the Solicitor General, who.
he said, had elucidated the points in the
/ case of the United States. What he would
say would be simply in the nature of un-
derscoring and emphasizing what Mr.. Taft
had said. The other side in its brief in
sisted. said the Attorney General. on many
propositions that would not bear examina-
| ton in the light of the law. He thought
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Conrt had
/ been settled; the opposition thought
| otherwise. The Alaska court, he
| said, was not an inferior conrt; authorities
| proved il was n superior court and Its find
| ings were just as conclusive on the Supreme
| Court as on anybody else. The citations OF
| decisions of British courts by the other
| side were of mayors courts and other in
| ferior tribunals. and the Court OF Kings
Bench had decided that they were not SUI
perior courts. Mr.. Miller, after defining
| the difference between the Jurisdiction OF
superior and inferior courts, said tho de-
cision of the Alaska court could not be at
tackled unless a statement OF want of juris.
| diction appeared on its face. and he quoted
Chief-justice Marshall in support of this
| contention.
The Attorneys general made an ironical
alluson TO the foreign policy OF Crest
Britain, adding that the British govern
ment had not always shown that touching
regard for International law of which Mr..
| Carlisle had spoken 30 highly yesterday.
In its international dealings. The question
of the boundaries. he said. was not oues-
tion for the courts. because the courts did
not make boundaries. They simply iEvesti-
| gated and found what political departments
| had established. Courts could not ones
tion tho acts of either of the political
branches of the government. In conclu-
siou, the Attorney general said au agree
ment had been arrived &C 90 TO the terms Of
4 In a. Hal