Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-03-03

w ASHTNdToN, ID. u, FEB. 39.-The
anxiously-awaited opinion of the United
States Supreme Court in the famous
case Of ex parte Thomas Henry Cooper,
owner Of the Canadian schooner w. Z.
Say ward, by which the government of
Great Britain and the Dominion of
Canada sought to obtain from the high
est legal tribunal in the United States a
determination of the question of the
right of the United States TO exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over the seal fish
cries in Behring Sea, was TO day rem
dered by the United States Supreme
Court. BY this suit, brought in the
name Of Cooper, by the government of
which he was a subject, writ of pro-
hibition was sought to restrain the
United States district court for the dis
trict of Alaska from proceeding to carry
out decree of forfeiture rendered by
the Alaska court The forfeiture decree
was rendered after the schooner Sayward
had been libelled 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
Behring Sea.
QUESTIONS INVOLVED.
The bringing of the suit was surprise
TO this government, which vigorously
resisted the preliminary plea asking
leave to file petition for writ of pro-
hibition. The United States Supreme
Court decided that II had the right to
hear the application for writ of pro-
hibition and the case was then argued
on its merits 1t was contended in be.
half of the United States that the Su.
preme Court had no jurisdiction to re.
view the proceedings of tho Alaska
court; that the face of the proceedings
showed that the Alaska court had iuris.
diction and that the Supreme Court
could not go behind the record to ascer.
tain whether or not jurisdiction actually
existed; that even if this contention
were decided against the United States
| il was possible that seals had been taken
within the three-mile limit. Lastly, the
counsel for this government maintained
that the question as TO whether or moi
the United States had jurisdiction over
Behring Sea was political one, involv.
ing the territorial sovereignty of this
country, and that the decision of Con.
gress aud the executive or the executive
alone was binding on the judicial
tribunals. Joseph II. Choate of New
York, and Calderon Carlisle of this
city, in behalf of the government OF
Great Britain, opposed the argument oil
Encouragement Miller and Solicitor.
general Taft,who represented the United
States.
THE OPINION.
The court decided in favor of The
| United States, and denied the petition
for a writ Of prohibition. The court
first took up the question of the right OIL
the Supreme Court to issue writ Of
prohibition against the Alaska court
II says that although the Alaska cour
was not mentioned in the act giving thu
United States Supreme Court power tC
issue writs OF prohibition to review de.
cisions Of the district courts, yet never
theless where the Alaska court is act
ing as a district court of the United
States and in an admiralty proceeding
it comes within the purview of the ac
| giving the Supreme Court power of re
view by way of writ of prohibition. |
then takes up the next question anc
says that the libel on its face states tha
the court found that the sealing hut
taken place within the limits of Alaska
and the waters thereof, thus making
jurisdiction appear fully on the face o
the proceedings. The owner of tn,
vessel, the court says, could have ques
toned the right of the court to exercs,
jurisdiction and try the case. He die
not do so, and the court holds that i
cannot now, on the ground that th,
private rights of the owner were in
volved, issue writ of prohibition I,
determine whether or not the Alaslli
court had the jurisdiction clearly as
serted on the face Of the proceedings.
Justice Field disscnted in this case
and also from decision in favor of tn
United States in the case of the schoone
Sylvia Handy, an American vessel
seized for illegal sealing, and in whicl
the points raised were the same as il
the Sayward case.
The political question raised by tn
Encouragement the court did no
actually decide, though ii conveyed
very broad intimation that if it had no
q narrower ground on which to refus
the writ it would have declined to gran
the writ on this ground, as the couI
should not pass upon questions whic
, were political in their nature. 1t sal
the matter had long been in controvers
, and negotiation between the two GOV
ernments. 1t recognized the honor PAL
: the court in the willingness expressed [
) have it review the merits of the fact q
to whether or not this country's iuri!
diction extended over the whole {
, Behring Sea, but that it did not thin
} the legal tribunals should interfere wit
l assertions of territorial sovereignty mad
by the other departments of the govern
: ment.
FORTY THOUSAND yDIE NEW