Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1892-03-03
Supreme Court Of the United States
Passes on the Anarchist
Cases.
Decision Of the State Supreme Court
Sustaining Their Sentences
is Affirmed.
Writ Of Prohibition Also Refused i'm
the Behring Sea
Cases.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 29.-The United
States supreme court today in the cases of
the anarchists, Fielden and Schwab, serv-
ing life terms In she Joliet, ILL.,, peniten-
tlary for participation in the Haymarket
riots, affirmed the decision of tee supreme
court OF Illinois that their sentences We're
not In violation of the constitution.
Justice Harlan, who delivered the opin-
ion of the court, first took up the ground that
the prisoners had been denied due process
| of law because they were not present when
| the illinois supreme court passed sentence
The supreme court of Illinois, says the
opinion, was not one of original jurisdic
ton. Sentence was pronounced by the
court OF Cook county and the
supreme court of the state of Illinois
merely fixed the date, In conformity with
| the criminal code of the state. No con-
stitutional right of the prisoners was de-
| MED by the state supreme court refusing
| to enter on its record the fact that
Schwsb and Fielden were not present
when Judgment was pronounced. SEN
| tence OF death was not pronounced by the
supreme court. The latter b ndy simply
affirmed the judgment of the Cook county
court.
mo we'll considered case supports the
contention of the appellant. Neither
reason nor public policy require that the
defendant shall be personally present
pending proceedings in the appellant
court, whose function is to determine
whether there were errors in the record to
the prejudice Of the accused. and especi-
ally where, as in this case, he had counsel
to represent him in the court of review
The opinion of the United States su-
| preme court in the case of ex parte Thorn
as H. Cooper, owner of the Canadian
schooner Sayward, by which the govern
ment of Great Britain and the Dominion
| of Canada sought to obtain from the high
| est legal tribunal in The United States a
determination of the question of the right
of the United States to exercise exclusive
! jurisdiction over the seal fisheries in Behr-
ing sea was today rendered. The court
first took up the question of the right of the
supreme court to issue writ Of prohibi
ton against the Alaska court. Il says
that although the Alaska court was not
mentioned in the act giving the United
States supreme court power to issue writs
of prohibition yet nevertheless where the
Alaska court is acting as a district court
Of the United States and in admiralty pre-
ceeding, it comes within the purview OF
| the aot giving the supreme court cover 10
| review by the way of writ of prohibi-
| ton.
1t then takes up the next question, and
| says the libel on it's face states that the
court found that sealing had taken place
| within the limits of Alaska and the waters
thereof, thus making the jurisdiction APP
pear fully on the face of the proceedings
The owner of the vessel, the court says.
could have questioned the right of
the court to exercise jurisdiction
and try the case. He did not do so and
the court holds that it cannot now, on the
ground that the private rights of the
owner were involved, issue writ of pro-
hibition to determine whether or not the
Alaska courts had jurisdiction clearly as
serted on the face of the proceedings
Justice Field dissented in this case and
also from the decision in favor Of the
United states in the case of the schooner
Sylvia Handy, the American vessel seized
for illegal sealing and in which the points
raised were the same as In the Sayward
case.
The political question the court did not
actually decide, though it conveyed very
broad intimation that if it had not mar
rover ground on which to refuse the writ
it would have declined to grant the writ
on the ground that the court should not
pass upon question political in nature.
1t said the matter had long been in con-
troversy and negotiation between the
two governments. 1t recognized the
honor paid the court in the Willingness
expressed to have it review the merits of
the fact as to whether or not this country's
jurisdiction extends over the whole of
Behring sea, but he did not think legal
tribunal should interfere with the asser-
tions of territorial sovereignty made by
other departments of the government.