The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1892-03-03
THE sAYwARD CASE.
An Important Decision I'm Favor OF thu
United States.

United States.
The United States Supreme Court on Monday
delivered an opinion On the SayWard seal fish
cry incident which was made a test case, in
which the Government Of Great Britain and
the Dominion OF Canada sought 10 learn from
the highest legal tribunal in the United States
whether this Government had exclusive juris-
diction over the seal fisheries in Bcring Sea.
The case, it will be remembered, was first
brought before the Alaska court. which rem
dercd a decree Of forfeiture The forfeiture
decree was rendered after the schooner Say
ward had been libcled 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 Eering Sea.
Thomas Henry Cooper, owner Of the schooner,
brought suit through his Government, By which
writ of prohibition was sought to restrain the
United States District Court for the District Of
Alaska from proceeding 10 carry out the decree
of forfeiture rendered by the Alaska court.
The bringing OF the suit was a surprise to
this Government, which vigorously resisted
the preliminary plea, asking leave to file
petition for a writ Of prohibition. Tho United
States Supreme Court decided that il had the
right 10 hear the application for a writ Of pro-
hibition, and the case was then argued On its
merits.
~
eminent that the decision of the Alaska court
was not subject 20 a review of its proceedings
by the United States Supreme Court; that the
Alaska court had jurisdiction which could not be
questioned, and that even if this contention
We're decided against the United States. IL was
possible that seals had been taken within the
thTee-mlle limit. Furthermore, il was urged
that the whole question was political one, in
yOlylng the territorial sovereignty OF this
country, and that the decision Of Congress and
the Executive, or Of the Executive alone, was
binding on the judicial tribunals.
The Court decided in favor of the United
States and denied the petition for a writ Of pro-
hibitiOn. As for the Alaska court, tho Supreme
Court decided that in this case tho Alaska
court acting as a District Court Of the United
States, and in an admiralty proceeding, it
comes within the purview Of the act giving the
Supreme Court power Of review Of proceedings
by way Of writ Of prohibition.
Tho court then takes up the next question,
and says 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, thus making jurisdiction appear fully
on the face Of the proceedings The owner Of
the Canadian vessel, the court says, could have
questioned the right of the court to exercise
jurisdiction and try the case. lie did not DO so,
aud the Court holds that il cannot now. on the
ground that the private rights Of the owner
were involved. issue a writ Of prohibition to de-
termue whether or not the Alaska court had
the jurisdiction clearly asserted OH the face Of
the proceedings.
The Court did not actually decide the politi-
cal question raised. but il intimatcd that il il
had not narrower gFOund on which 20 refuse
the writ il would have done 80 on this ground,
as the United States supreme Court should not
pass upon questions which were political in
their nature.