Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1892-03-01
ALL SUSTAINED
Supreme Coar! GIYas q Verdict
for ,ha Uailed Stats
10 The SayV,rd Case and Sustains L..
sall'y Of ItKllky Bill
Besides Backing up Speaker Reed in
His "No Quorum" Ruling.

WlsHIsGros. Feb 20 The anxiousl,
awaited opinlt Of the United States Su
prsme Court in the now famous case ex
psrte Of Thomas Henry Cooper who owned
the c. madam schooner W. P. Sayward, BY
which the governments Of Great Britain ant
Dominion Of Canada sought 10 obtain from
the highest legal tribunal in the UtiteC
States the determination Of the question oi
the right Of the United States TO exercise
exclusive Jurisdiction over the seal fisher
les in Behrlng Sea, was today rendered BY
the L nited States Supreme Court.
By this suit, brought in the name OF
Cooper by ihe government of which be va.
| & subject, 8 writ on pre- h bition we sought
10 restrain the United States District Cour,
TOR the district of Alaska from proceeding
to carry out the decree Of forfeiture rer-
dered BY the Alaska court.
| The forfeiture decree was rendered after
the schooner Saywsrd had been hbelled
and sentence obtained on the ground that
she violated al act of Congress prohib ting
the catching Of seals in the waters Of
Alaska or Bshripg ses.
The bringing Of the suit was & surpri'e
to this government which vigorously re-
sisted the preliminary plea asking leave to
uit . petltlUu VI
The United States supreme court decided
thai it had the right '0 n,sI 'he application
for writ of prohibition and the case was
,, then argued on its merits.
Iswas conte nded iu behalf Of the United
Stated that the supreme court h.d no iuris-
diction to review the proceedings of the
AIa.ka court; the face Of the proceedings
showed that the Alaska court had jurlsdic-
ton, and supreme court could not 90 be
mind he record to ascertain whether or not
the jurisdiction actually existed and even
il this contention was decided sgsinst the
United States it was possible that seals had
been taken within the three mile limit.
The counsel for this government main
tanned that the question as 10 whether the
United States has jurisdiction over Behring
sea WAS political, involving the territorial
sovereignty of this country, and that the
decision of Cor gress and the Executive, or
the Executive alone, was binding on the
j1dicisl tribunals.
Joseph H. Choate, New York, and Cal
deron Carlisle of this city, in behalf OF the
government of Great Britain, opposed
the argument of Attorney. General Miller
and Solicitor General Taft, who represent
ed the United States.
The Court decided in favor Of the Unit
ed States, and denied the petition for the
writ Of prohibition.
The Court fret took up the question Of
the hight Of supreme court 10 Issue writ
OF prohibition against the Alaska court.
l. SAYS although the Alaska court is not
mentioned in the act giving the United
States supreme csurt the power to issue
wfits of prohibition, to review the decisions
Of the district courts, nevertheless where
the Alaska court is acting as district court
of The United States and in admiralty pro-
csedngs it comes within the purview of the
act giving the supreme court power to re-
view by the way of = writ Of prohibition.
Ii takes up the mex gu 'suOn and says
the libel on its face s.Atas thst the court
found that sesiing had taken place within
the limits of Alaska and the va.ers thereon,
making the Jurisdiction sppesr fully on the
face Of the proceeding
The owner Of the vessel, the Durt says,
could have questioned the right Of the court
to exercise jurisdiction and Try the case.
He did not do SO and the court holds it
cannot now, on the ground that the private
rights of the owner were involved, issue =
writ of prohibition TO determine whether
!
WAS Clearly asserted on the face of the
proceedings.
Justice Field 6issented in this case. also
from the decision IN favor OF the United
S'stes in the case Of the schooner syivis
| [ andy, the American vessel seiz d for il
lei gal sealing in which the points raised are
the same as the Sayward case.
The political question raised by the sttor-
ney general the did court not decide, though
it conveyed a very broad intima,ion that If
it had not narrower ground on which to re-
fuse the writ, 1t would have declined to
grant the writ on this ground as the court
should not pass upon the questions poli.i'
cal nature.
1t said the mstters had long been in con-
trVversy and negotiations were held between
the two governments.
Il recognized the honor paid the court
In the willingness expressed to have II re-
view the merits of the fact as TO whether
this country's jurisdiction extends over the
whole Behriug sea- but ii d,d not think
legal tribunals should interfere with asser-
tions Of territorial sovereignty made by
other departments of the government.