Pawtucket tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 1890-189?, 1892-03-01
BEHR|NG SEA CASE.
Decision in Favor Of
the United States.
SURPRISE FOR DEMOCRATS.
Reeds Action in Considering Quorum
Sustained Important Decisions.

WASHINGTON. March, The cautiously
awaited opinion of the United States
supreme court in the now famous case of
ex parte Thomas Henry Cooper, owner OF
the Canadian schooner W. u. Sayward, by
which the government of Great Britain
and the Dominion of Canada sought to OBJ
tain from the highest legal tribunal in the
United States n determination of the cues
ton OF the right OF the United States 10
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the
seal fisheries in Behring sea, was yesterday
rendered by the United States supreme
court. by this suit, brought ia the name
of Cooper 10y the government OF which he
was subject, n 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 forfeit
ure rendered 10y The Alaska court
The court first took up the question of
the right of the supreme court TO issue
writ of prohibition against the Alaska
court. IL 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 deci-
sions Of the district courts, yet neverthe-
less where the Alaska court is acting as a
district court of the United States and In
the purI lew OF the act giving the supreme
court power ot review by way Of writ of
prohibition. IL then takes up the next
question and says that the libel on its face
states that the court found that the seal
ing had taken place within the limits OF
Alaska and the waters thereof, thus max
ing jurisdiction appear fully on the face
of The proceedings.
Tho owner Of The vessel the court says,
could ave questioned the right of the
court ~ exercise jurisdiction and try the
ease. t." dii not do so and the court holds
that Il cannot now, on the ground that the
private rightn of the owner were involved,
issue Il writ of prohibition TO determine
whether ar not the ALASKA court had the
jurisdiction clearly asserted on the face of
the proceeding.
Justice Field dissented In this case and
also from decision In favor OF the United
ST ties in the case Of the schooner Sylvia
Handy, an American vessel seized for IL
legal sealing, and In which the points
raised were the same as in the Sayward
case. The political question, raised by the
attorney general, the court did not ac-
tually decide, though IL conveyed very
broad int!maton that il it had not a mar
rover ground on which to refuse the writ
IL would have declined to grant the writ
on this ground, rs the court should not
pass upon questions which were political
in their nature.
IL said the matter had long been in
controversy and negotiations between the
two governments. IL recognizes the honor
paid the court i'm the willingness expressed
to have il review the merits of the fact as
to whether or not this country's jurisdic-
tion extends over the whole Of Behring sea,
but that it did not think the legal tribunals
should interfere with assertions of terrific
rial sovereignty made by the other depart
ments nf the gONornment.