The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1892-03-01
BEHRING SEA CASE
The United States Supreme
Courts Decision.
1T IS AGAINST GREAT BRITAIN.
Any Other Conclusion Would ACT Disas-
trously to This Country.

The Supreme Court Had Power to Issue a
Writ of Prohibition to the Alaska
Court, and Decides that the Latter
Court Was Acting as a District Court of
the United States.
WASHINGTON, March 1.-The Sayward
or Behring Sea case was decided yester-
day by the Supreme Court of the
United States against the British gov
ernment.
The case came to the Supreme Court
on an application for writ of prohibi-
ton to the District Court of the United
States for the District of Alaska to re-
strain the enforcement of a sentence of
forfeiture and condemnation entered in
that court in Septem Der, 1887, on libel
filed by the United States against the
schooner w. p. Sayward upon the
ground that the Alaska court was
without jurisdiction in the premises.
The petition was presented by Sir John
Thompson, the Attorney General of
Canada, with the knowledge and ap-
proval of the British government, re-
questing the aid of the court for the
claimant, British subject.
The main avermeut of the British
| government in the case was, that the
| Sayward, a British vessel, while lawfully
sailing upon the high seas and fifty mine
miles from any land, was forcibly seized
| by United States revenue cutter, and
| forcibly carried to Sitka, where she was
detained by United States Marshal,
| libelled by the United States District-At-
| torney for Alaska, and condemned by
| the Alaska District Court for having
killed fur seal at the place of seizure.
The case was taken to the Supreme
Court in 1885, but was Withdrawn by
/ Cooper, who was advised that his appeal
would not be considered Last year,
however, the case was again brought to
the Supreme Court, ON the application
for writ of prohibition. The evident
| purpose of the action was to determine
whether the United States had
jurisdiction over sBehring Sea as a
Mare Clausen. A decision against the
United States would be prima-facie
evidence of Great Britain's refusal to
recognize the rights of this country over
the seal-fisheries in the sea.
In the decision of the court, rednered by
Chief Justice Fuller, the court says with
reference to the contention of the United
States that the Supreme Court did not
have power to issue writ of prohibition
to the Alaska Court, that although il
was of the opinion that when the .appli
cation for the rule was made, and that i
subsequently held that the District Court
of Alaska was not one of the court
mentioned in article Ill of the constitu
tion declaring that the judicial power o.
the United States shall be vested in one
supreme court and in such inferio
. courts as Congress shall from time t
time establish, it never-the-less conclude,
tha where the District Court of Alask
was acting as District Court of tn
United States, and as such, proceedin
in admiralty, it came within that sectio
and that the Supreme Court had powe
to issuethe writ of prohibition to tina
court in proper case aud as the que'
tion involved could be, in the court
judgment satisfactorily presented upo
a return, it granted the rule.