The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1892-03-03
FOR UNCLE SAM !.
The Boring Sea Question De.
cided by the United States
Supreme Court.
It Is the Case Of the Schooner
Sayward, Seized for Illegal
Sealing.

WASHINGTON, March THE opinion OF
the United States supreme court in the case
of ex-parte Thomas H. Cooper, owner OF
the Canadian schooner Sayward, by which
the government of Great Britain and the
Dominion of Canada sought to obtain from
the highest legal tribunal in the United
States determination of the question OF
the right Of the United States to exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over the seal fisheries
in Boring sea. was to-day rendered by the
United States supreme court.
The decision is against the British gov
eminent. This does not invalidate the ar
btration proceedings now going on between
this country and Great Britain, but it would
have had its effect against the United States
in the negotiations if the court had rendered
different decision.
The main point in issue in the case was
whether Boring sea was an open or closed
body Of water. The schooner Sayward was
seized fifty-nine miles from land by United
States revenue vessel for catching seal in
Boring sea. The case was heard in the
United States district court for Alaska,
which decided that the Sayward should be
sold IN conformity with the. United States
law for illegal sealing III Berlng sea. The
United States supreme court was appealed
to nomnally by the owner of the Sayward,
Thomas Henry Cooper, but really by the
British government. to
PREVENT THE SALE OF THE VESSEL
on the ground that the Alaska court did not
II ur1tn or
prohibition was asked for to prevent the
sale. The United States contended that the
supreme court had no jurisdiction in the
matter because the question was political
one. The court in its decision overrules
this objection of the United States. but re-
fuses to grant the writ OF prohibition Tor
the sale o; the schooner.
1t saws 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 decisions OF
the district courts. yet nevertheless where
the Alaska court is acting as district court
of the United States and in all admiralty
proceeding, it comes within the purview Of
the act giving the supreme court power of
review by way of writ o. 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 thus making jurisdiction
appear :ully on the ace of the proceedings.
The owner of the vessel. the court says,
could have questioned the right OF the
court to exercise jurisdiction and try the
case He did not do so, aud the court
holds that it cannot now. on the ground
that the private rights of the owner were
involved issue writ Of prohibit to de-
tternine whether Or not the Alaska court
had the jurisdiction clearly asserted on the
lace Of the proceedings.
ANOTHER SIMILAR CASE.
Justice Field dissented in this case. and
also from a decision in favor of the United
States in the case OF the schooner Sylvia
Handy. an American vessel, seized for
illegal sealing, and III which the points
raised were the same as in the Sayward
case.
The political question the court did not
actually decide, though 1t conveyed very
broad intima,ion. Ifit had not narrower
ground on which to refuse the writ it would
have declined to grant the writ on this
ground. as the court should not pass upon
questions which were political in their
nature. It said the matter had long been in
controversy and negotiation between the
TWO governments. recognized the honor
paid the cuur. III the willingness expressed
to have it review the merits of the TACT as to
whether or not this country's jurisdiction
extended over the whole OF Berng sea, but
that it did not think the legal tribunals
should interfere with assertions Of territorial
sovereignty made by other departments Of
the government.