The World. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1891-1896, 1892-03-01
THE SAYWARD CASE
End Of the Legal contest Between Two
Governments.
THE UNITED STATES 4 WINNER


The Famous Controversy in which
Great Britain ard Canada. Through
Luyai Subject. sought 70 Reverse
i Decree of Forfeiture Issued BY
the Alaskan Court.
WASHINGTON. March THE anxiously
awaited opinion Of the United States ia.
preme court IN the now famous case OF
ex-parte Thomas Henry Cooper. owner
Of the Canadian schooner w, r. Say
ward, bywhich the governments Of Great
Britain and the Dominion Of Canada
sought to obtain from the highest legal
tribunal in the United States deterini-
nation Of the question Of the right Of the
United States to exercise exclusive juris-
diction over the seal fisheries In Behring
States supreme court.
BY this suit, brought In the name Of
Cooper by the government of which he.
was subject, Il writ of prohibition was
sought to restrain the United States dis
| trict court for the district Of Alaska
| from proceeding 10 carry out decree Of
forfeiture rendered by the Alaska court
The forfeiture decree was rendered
after the schooner Sayward had been
libeled and sentence obtained on tho
ground that she had violated the act OF
congress prohibiting the. catching OF
seals In the waters OF Alaska or Behring
sea.
Argued on Its Merits.
The bringing Of the suit was sur
prise to this government, which vigor-
Ously resisted the preliminary plea ask
ing leave to file a petition for d writ Of
prohibition. The United States supreme
court decided that it had the right to
hear the application for q writ Of prohi-
bition, and the case was then argued on
its merits. IL 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 no be
hind the record to ascertain whether o.
not jurisdiction actually existed; thai
even If this contention were decided
against the United States, II was posi-
BILE TINT seals had been taken within til.
three mile limit. Lastly, the counse
for this government maintained that thu
question as to whether the United State
had Jurisdiction over Rehring nea was
political one, involving the territoria
sovereignty Of this country, and thu
the decision Of congress and the execu
tive, or the executive alone,was bindin,
on the Judicial tribunals.
In Favor or Our Government.
4 Joseph Fl. Choate, of New York, an
Calderon Carlisle, of this city, in behal
of the government of Great Britain, OF
posed the argument Of Attorney Geners
Miller and Solicitor General Taft, VIII
| represented the United States. TIL
J court decided in favor of the Unite
States, and denied the petition for awri
! | of prohibition. The court first took j
J / the question of the right of the suprem
81 court 10 issue a writ of prohibitio
! against the Alaska court.
III 1t says that although the Alaska coul
/ was not mentioned 5n the act giving til
United States supreme court power I
issue writs of prohibition to review dt
cisions of the district courts, yet nevei
theless, where the Alaska court Is act
ing as u district court of the Unite
/ | States, and in an admiralty proceeding
J | 1t comics within the purview of the a6
! | giving the supreme court power Of ri
view by way Of writ Of prohibition.
II then takes up the next question
andsays that the libel on its face state
that the court found that the sealin
had taken place within the limits 9
, Alaska and the waters thereof.