The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1892-03-01
THE SAYWARD CASE.
End of the Legal Contest Between
Two Governments.
THE UNITED STATES A WINNER.

The Famous Controversy in Which
Great Britain and Canada Through
Lnya! Subject, Sought To Reverse
Decree of Forfeiture Issued by
the Alaskan Court.
WASHINGTON, March 1.-The anxiously
awaited opinion of the United States su-
preme court IN the now famous case of
eS-parte Thomas Henry Cooper, owner
of the Canadian schooner w. P. Say
ward, by which the government of Great
Britain and the Dominion of Canada
sought to obtain from the highest legal
tribunal in the United States determi-
nation of the question of the right of the
United States to exercise exclusive juris-
diciion over the seal fisheries in Behring
sea was yesterday rendered by the United
States supreme court.
BY this suit, brought in the name of
Cooper by the government of which he
was subject, writ of prohibition was
sought to restrain the United States dis
trict court for the district of Alaska
from proceeding to carry out decree of
forfeiture rendered by the Alaska court.
The forfeiture decree was rendered
after the schooner Sayward had been
hbeled and sentence obtained on the
ground that she had violated the act of
congress prohibiting the catching of
seals in the waters of Alaska or Behring
sea.
Argncd on Its Merits.
The bringing of the suit was a sur
prise to this government, which vigor-
ouoly resisted the preliminary plea ask
ing leave to file petition for writ of
prohibition. The United States supreme
court decided that it had the right to
hear the application for writ of prohi-
bltlon, and the case was then argued on
its merits. 1t was contended in behalf
of the United States that the supreme
court had no jurisdiction to review the
proceedings of the Alaska court; that
the face of the proceedings showed that
the Alaska court had jurisdiction, and
that the supreme court could not go be-
hind the record to ascertain whether or
not jurisdiction actually existed; that
even if this contention We're decided
against the United States, it was possi-
bic that seals had been taken within the
three mile limit. Lastly, the counsel
for this government maintained that the
question as to whether the United States
had jurisdiction over Behring eea was
political one, involving the territorial
sovereignty of this country, and that
the decision of congress and the execu-
tive, or the executive alone was binding
on the judicial tribunals.
In Favor of Our Government.
Joseph H. Choate, of New York, and
I Calderon Carlisle, of this city, in behalf
OF the government of Great Britain, op-
pased tie argument of Attorney General
Miller and Solicitor General Taft, who
represented the United States. The
court decided in favor of the United
States, and denied the petition for writ
of prohibition. The court first took up
the question of the right of the supreme
court to issue writ of prohibition
against the Alaska court.
1t says that although the Alaska court
was not mentioned in the act giving the
| United States supreme court power to
issue writs of prohibition to review de-
cisions Of the district courts, yet never
| theless, where the Alaska court is act
ing as district court of the United
States, and in an admiralty proceeding,
it comes within the pnrview of the act
giving the supreme court power of re-
view by way of writ of prohibition.
1t then takes up the next question,
and says that the libel on its face states
/ that the court found that the sealing
had taken place within the limits of
Alaska and the waters thereof.