The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-03-01
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
THE BEHRING SEA CASE DECIDED
AGAINST GREAT BRITAIN.

Amrred-Usasiurous Decisloa In Favor Of
the Right or the Speaker to Count /.
Qnorum-The Bsrbca Wire Fence Patents
declared TO be vsiia-A Decision Against
the Appeal OF the Chicago Ausrekists.
WASHINGTON. Feb. 29-The Supreme Court
rcconvened to-day for tho spring session. A
long list OF OF unusually important and inter-
esting cases were disposed of. and tho attend
ance OF attorneys was large. am ne them being
Attorney General Miller. B. +. Butler. ex-Sec.
rotary Boutwell,. Senators Davis and Kenna.
Solicitor General Taft. and ex-Representa-
tive Pay son.
In the Sayward case. involving the jurisdic-
ton Of the United States over Behring Sea. the
writ of prohibition asked for by the British
Government was denied. The main point in
Issue in the case was whether BehrnG Sea was
an open or closed body OF water. The schooner
Sayward was seized fifty nine miles from land
by u United States revenue vessel for catch
ing seal In Bel, ring Sea. The case was hoard
in the United States District Court for Alaska.
which decided that the Saywnrd should be-
sold, in conformity with United States law. for
illegal sealing IN Behring Sea. Tho United
stntcs Supreme Court was appealed to nom
finally by the owner Of the Sayward. Thomas
Henry Cooper. but really by the British Gov
eminent to prevent the sale OF the vessel on
Ilie GTDunu tuut tIe Couit uiu INV hoNc
jurisdiction. writ Of prohibition was asked
for to prevent the sale. The United States
contended that the Supreme Court had no ill.,
rsdiction. Tho court, in its decision. over
rules this objection Of the United States. but
refuses to grant tho writ OF prohibition. 1t
also declined to decide in the main question
as to whether Behring Sea is q closed sea. rs
that was political question merely and
would not fall within the province OF the court
,lo,o. l..,;l .,ls h..a
OF the schooner Sylvia Handy. involving points
nearly similar. in ftpvor of the United States.
Justice Field was the only member OF tho
court dissenting.
RIGHT OF THE SPEAKER TO COUNT QUORUM.
Tho right OF tho Speaker OF the House to
count quorum. as was done in the Fifty-nrst
Congress. was unanimously affirmed by the
court in an opinion delivered by Justice
Brewer. in tho case OF the United States agt.
BALM. Joseph Il Co.. appealed from the New
York Circuit Court. This case involved the
validity of the law passed Muy 9. 1891. and
known as the Worsted classification act
When il was before the House for action 1913
votes were recorded for the passage OF the
bill. Whereupon the Speaker proceeded to
make quorum by counting several rep
resentativcs present. but not voting. pursuant
"Ths srtle was Valid" said Justice Brew
or. 1T is within the competency Of the
the Constitution or against natural justice. to
sSnf 4 there e is P
Of theuct. Justice Brewer said it was a gen
to he sso1s Of all TN
woollen goods. and that he was not required
in every particular case. Of importation 10
cinsion Of the court is that the act was legally
passed. and that by its own terms. and ire
Treasury the duties on worstcd cloths were to
ne such as were placed BY the act OF 1899 On
remnnded.
VALIDITY OF THE M'K1N1EY ACT.
The decision, 9 , the Supreme Court ip the
oyd It a and sa 81 fas s
New versus TIE United states nyoy,Ing
sessed on various ARTICLES imported by the up.
That the net H was not the law Of she United
Stntes for the reason that section 80 Of the act,
onsa seed b
signed BY the gsesdi1g Officers err tS Of ths two
Z" SFe the GO censttutiop. This Was the first lime
Justice Harlan said i received the eonsidera-
tion il deserved. After referring to the con-
sage OF the bin and the proceedings OF Con
gress the court says:
REPRESENTATIVES and by the President Of the
Senate in omen session OF an enrolled biz. IL
such Sill as Sas Ss passed
and when bill thus attested receives his
he re
that has passed Congress should be deemed
complete and !. Is ddItsd
appearing its that i
+ tss Of sher taf 70
in which it was signed by the presid;;
ms s y + fres hS tw9 is Aa s ha an
der any other view. it becomes possible for the
speaker q the House G. Representatives and
the people as law a blll that was mover passed
by Congress- But this GossipiIity is too re-
be snSsss
to the s the OF ne tws
sion q the pon1aE will in the mode described
Upon ms such a suggestion: Is forbidden BY the
respect due to coordinats branch q the Coy
s q se
and the approval Of the President. is conclu-
s sxs toe hs tie
would be far less than those that would Ger.
result dspna
manner in which the journals OF the respective
Houses are kept by the subordinate Officers
charged WITH ths az, duty 81 Herplng men ascisions
are quoted. As to the efficiency Of the Jour
nails as evidence IN court under section $50
1T is clear that this is not statutory decla-
ration that the journals are the highest evil
derce OF the facts stated in them. or comple
evidence Of all that occurs in the progress Of
business in the respective Houses. much less
the official signatures OF the presiding officers
Of the two Houses and Of the President. as an
act which has passed Congress and been APP
proved by the President may be overcome by
what the journal OF either House fails to show.
Nc are Of tho opinion that it Is not competent
for the appellants TO show from the journals OF
either House that the enrolled hill. designated
II. H. 44lU. when it passed Congress- con-
tanned section that does not appear in the
enrolled act In the custody OF the State De.
partment"
RECIPROCITY AND THE SUGAR BOUNTY.
Another ground OF contention by the appel
lnn M ~ final fha third section of tho La ~