New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-01
DECISION OF THE SAYwARD CASE.
THE COURT DENIES The PETITION FOR WRIT
OF PROHI BITION.

OF PRoHI BITIoN.
Washington, Feb. 29-The anxOusly awaited opinion
Of the United States supreme Court IN the now famous
case of Thomas Henry Cooper owner OF the Canadian
schooner w. r. Sayward. by which Great Britain ana
Canada sought 10 obtain from the highest legal tribunal
in the United states determination OF the question
of the right Of the United states to exercise exclusive
jurisdiction the seal fisheries In Behrng sea, was
to-day rendered by the United states supreme Court
Ry this suit brought in the name Of Cooper BY the
Government OF which he was subject, writ OF pro
ubitiOn was sought 10 restrain the United states DIS
rict Court Alaska from proceeding TO carry out
decree Of forfeiture rendered BY the Alaska court The
forfeiture decree was rendered after the schooner say
ward had been lbecd and sentence obtained, on the
ground that had violated the act OF Congress pro-
hbiting the catching OF seals In the wafes Oh Aas"
or Behring sea- The bringing OF the suit sur
prise 10 this Government. which vigorously resisted
the preliminary plea asking leave TO he petition Tor
writ Of prohibition. Tie supreme Court decided tst
il had the right to hear the application for writ OF
prohibition and the case then argued on It's
merits.
II WAS contended In behalf OF the United states that
the Supreme Court had jurisdiction 10 review the
proceedings of the Alaska comt; that the face Oh he
proceedings showed that the Alaska court hah Jurs-
dictlon and that the supreme Court could not 20
behind the record to ascertain whethei or not J"r's-
dcion actually existed that even If this contention
er deid.d against the United States it possible
that seals had been taken within the three mile limit
Lastly the counsel for this Government maintained 'ha'
the question TO whether Or not the ,hteu suites
bad Jurisdiction over Behring sea was poiltcal
one involving the territorial sovereignty Oh tiis
country. and that the decision Of Congress ana the
Executive or the EAecuu'c "'o"o was "'"'o v" WV
judicial tribunals.
ro.e,b If Choate of New. York. and Calderon Car
Isle OF this city, In behalf Of the Government OF
Great Britain, opposed the argument OF Attorney
General Miller and Solicitor General Taft, who repre-
sented the United States
The court decided in favor Of the United states, ana
d.nied the petition for writ Of prohibition. lhe
ccur, first took up the question OF the right OF the
su,rems Court to issue a writ of prohibition against
, Alaska court. IL says that, although the Alaska
ourt was not mentioned In the act giving the united
states supreme Court power to issue writs OF proo
,op 10 review decisions Of the district courts yet
nevertheless where the Alaska court Is actmg as
district court of the United states, and In az admiralty
procccdpg IT comes within the purvew OF the act
giving the supreme Court power OF review by way OF
writ OF prohibition. 1t then takes up the next ques
fin, and saws that the libel It's face states that the
court found that the sealing had taken place Within
the limits OF Alaska and the waters theieoi' mus
making jurisdiction appear fully the face OF the pro
c.eaIngs The owner Of the vessel, the court says,
could have questioned the right of the court TO exercise
jurisdiction and try the He did not DO so. and
h eourt holds that cannot now the ground that
,be private rights Of the owner were involved, issue
writ Of prohibition to determine whether or not tho
Alaska court had the Jurisdiction clearly asserted on
the face Of the proceedings r..
decision In favor Of the United states in the case OF
the schooner sylvia Handy an american vessel sesa aa
for Illegal aling, and IN which Inc poes ra'ea "eo
the same q, In the saywaId case. ....
The political question raised by the ATTORNEY General
hS ntimation that the court should not pass upon
questions which were political ip their NATURE