Show THE SAYWRRD CASE I Comes Up Before the Supreme Court THE FULL BENCH WAS PRESENT Carlisle Opened the Case on Behalf of the Owner SollcltorUeneral Laliln Opened for the Govornmot WASHINGTON Nov DThe United States supreme court chamber was > crowded this morning with distinguished members of the bar present to hear the arguments in the Sayward Behrlng sea sealers case ExSecretary Bayard and exAttorney General Garland of President Clevelands cabinet exSenator Edmunds Senator Mitchell of Oregon Representative Springer of Illinois and others wore present pres-ent besides AttorneyGeneral Miller SolicitorGeneral Tatt Joseph Choate of New York and others who will take part part in the arguments Justice Bradlay who has been in feeble health for several mouths past was present The court will therefore hear this and other important cases and Justice Bradley will take part in the hearing ot such of them as his health wi permit and the others will go on without with-out him When court assembled Justice Bradley was not present but he arrived and took his placo on the bench just before the Say ward I case was called so the full court was present when tho hearing began This celebrated case arises out of the I soizure of the Canadian sealer W P Say ward in Behriug sea for violation of the act of Congress making ita penalty to catch seals within the waters of Behriug sea The vessel was libeled under tie admiralty ad-miralty laws of the United Stated and after trial the United States district court of Alaska declared a forfeiture of the ves sel The suit was then brought to this court on motion for a writ of prohibition pro-hibition to stop the Alaskan court from taking measures to enforce its decree the grounds for the motion bong bo-ng the contention that the court had no urisdiutiou to try the offousn for the reason rea-son it was commuted more than three miles from the shore and therefore under the law of nations without the jurisdiction of the United States By this method it is sought to secure an opinion from the court i on a question which has been for a longtime long-time in contrversy between the United States and Great Britain as to the exclusive exclu-sive right of the former country to the seal fisheries of Bebring sea The opening skirmish in this legaljbattle resulted in favor of Great Britain the court deciding against the preliminary plea bv the United States that the supreme court could not entertain oven a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition prohibi-tion Since the legal proceedings began an agreement has been reached between the two governments under which It is hoped to secure a final and definite solution of the long pending diplomatic dispute but this will not affect the present case Calderon Carlisle of this city opened the case in behalf of the owner of the Sayward At the outset he said the decision of this case could not forestall anything any other branch of the government should do Of course he said it will stop any seizure of any foreign vessel under any existing law This court may in this case without expressing ex-pressing any opinion as to the rights of the United States hold that the seizure of this foreign vessel fiftynine miles from land was illegal under international law and under the existing law of the United States and not forestall any convention of the United States with reference to seal property prop-erty ertyCarlisle combatted the position taken by the United States that this court was bound by the face of the proceedings and could not go behind what was shown on the record submitted by tho judge of the Alaska court First taking up the words of the libel which sets out The vessel was seized in that part of Bebring sea ceded by Russia to the United States he said it might very well be held that no part of it was ceded by Russia I it was a cession ces-sion from anvbodv it was a cession from the civilized world Vo for Russia could not cede beyond three miles from the shore Carlisle next took up the paint raised by the United States that i tho court could go behind the return of the Alaska judge there was evidence which it may be presumed pre-sumed might have justified the court in holding that tho seals were taken within the three mile limit The attorneygen eral Carlisle said in addition to the two small barriers of which he had spoken had set up another more serious one namely that tho position taken by the executive with reference to Bohring sea was a position posi-tion takon on a political question that of national sovereignty which absolutely binds the court whether that position posi-tion be right or wrong I the argument be correct that regardless regard-less of the law of nations and the act of Congress the President can extend the national boundaries far out into the ocean shall he stop there and not make assertions as ts our power and right which would in the language of Justice Story lead to universal uni-versal mischief He then asked why if the United States could try British seniors for offenses in any of these waters why not British sailors for murder He claimed the writ of prohibition prohibi-tion must issue because of the fundamental want of jurisdiction in the Alaska court I SolicitorGeneral Laflin in opening the I case for the United States said its position could bestated in two sentences First that the question which petitioner seeks here to raise is not presented to the court on the record in the case Secondthat i it is presented to the court the question has been decided being a political question by the political deparlmont of the government and the court will not reverse or qualify that decision Taking up the political phase of the argument the solicitorgen oral said the government did not deny that the jurisdiction of the Alaskan court and tho venue of the offense were judicial questions ques-tions to bo decided by that court and by this court in a proper case What ho asserted I as-serted was that the jurisdiction of that I court and the venuo of the offense by a single step were made Inevitably to depend uponnational jurisdiction in Bonrinc sea and that was a political question and that the decision of the executive and of Congress Con-gress on that political question is conclusive conclu-sive not only upon this court but upon every citizen within the jurisdiction |