The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-03-27

line, including q, portion Of Bering
sea, all the people and the courts
o. the country are bound By such governmental
acts, declarations and assertions and by the
treaty; and the responsibility Of maintaining
the national authority within the boundaries SO
fixed and to the extent asserted BY executive
srnmsnts rests with the executive and Iegisla-
tive branches Of the government In the opin-
ion Of the supreme court in the case of Jones
y. the United states, Is. y; s., 2o2. written BY
is the sovereign, de ure or de facto, of territory
is not a Judicial, but political question, the
Dissemination of which by the legislative and
executive departments of any government con-
olusively binds the judges as well as all other
officers, citizens and subjects of that govern
ment This principle has always been upheld
great variety of circu instances, Gelston VS. Hoyt,
Swheat, 2le, S24; United states va Palmer,
Wheat, $40: the Diyins Psstora. Wheat, 81;
Eo,ter ". Nelson: P sss 2s so7 sos Kea1s v.
5l1, $40; Williams va Suffolk Ina Co, 10 Pet,
415; United States vs. Yorba, WALL, 4l2, 423;
United States vs.. Lynde, II Wall, So. 63S 1t q
Eiw. Adm. appx. D; Taylor va. Barclay, Sim,
213 Emperor of Austria vs.. Day, DEG, f. &
j., 2l7, 231, 233; Republic OF Peru W. Peruvian
VI. Drsyfus, IS Oh. D., $50, 35a All
courts Of Justice are bound to take judicial no.
tice Of the territorial extent of the jurisdic-
s,on exercised ey .ne az sovesnmeat whose law;
of the sovereignty of foreign power, as appear
ing from the public acts of the legislature and
executive, although those acts are not formally
put in evidence. nor in accord with the plead
ings. United states vs.. Reynes, How, 1877;
Kennett Va. Chambers. IA How, IS; Hoyt vs.
RUSSELL III U. s., 401, 404; Coffee vs. Grover 123
q. g., /; State Vs. Dunwell 8 r. L, 127; State vs.
Wagner, 81 Maine us; Taylor vs.. Barclay. aud
Emperor of Austria w. Day, above cited; /
Greenl. Ev., sec. 6.
1t has been further commended on the part
of the defense that this vessel was especially
privileged to engage in the sealing business in
Bsring sea, by reason of the fact that her owner
and crew are Indians, of the Makah tribe, and
by virtue Of the treaty made with said tribe of
Indians, whereby, 1.-THE rights of taking fish
and Of whaling and sealing at usual and accus-
toned grounds and stations IL further secured
to said Indians, in common with all
citizens Of the United States and OF erecting
temporary houses for the purpose of curing, to-
gether with the privilege OF hunting and gather
ing roots and berries on open and unclaimed
land"-12 U. s. Statutes $40. 1t IL obvious, how
ever, from the language above quoted that the
treaty secures to the Indians only an equality of
rights and privileges In tAe matter OF fishing,
whaling and sealing. The guarantee is of
rights in common with all citizens OF the United
States, and certainly such treaty stipulatons
give no support to Q claim for peculiar or supe-
ror rights or privileges denied to citizens of the
country in general.
decree OF forfeiture a. prayed for in the
libel of information will be entered