OCR Text |
Show Till S! Al. USUI lit (1'1MI(1. Tiil United fiates Hureino court has retidend Its dieliloti In what Is known as II e "Siyward Case " rtiomaa llenty Cooiwr, owner of the Catiadlauschoomr "V. 1' Hayward," and a Ilntlsh clt z-n, liex nrteoueot tho tartles In his tase Ills virssl waa riught killing seal In llrhrlng Hea, f.'l miles from IsnJ, uuJulyO, 15.S7. Hhe was ti Ize I and taktu by tho United Hlatea rattnus cutter "Itual" to Hltka, Alla, where ahe waa III sllod by the U H District cjurt. Cooper apjie lie J from thedecislon of thai court to the rfu rente court of tl e Unlliil Htalis, hut alter urda hal the apjieal dlinilstud on the ground toat Hie dMrlct cuurt having no Jurisdiction, Its Judgment In tin cue was a nullity. This withdrawal on Ihe art of Cooper, however, did not allect tlio action of Ihe Huprtnie Court. It wai about to lituu a mandate man-date to tlio Alaska ciurt to executu Hie decree of forfeiture aalnit Cooper's vessel, riien came Cooler ngaln before be-fore theHuprcme Court and resented n petition for a writ of proh.bll.ou to eitoplhe Alaska tourt from (rotted-Ingfurthor (rotted-Ingfurthor lu Ihe case At Ilia same tlmu Hlr John Thomp-sjn, Thomp-sjn, Altorney-Utneral for Canada, through thesamecouiiaelviutloyud by Cooper, nslud irmlsslou to Ale on hihalf of Cuni la a simitar I elltlon to Ibst of Cuoitr. Mr. Caldcrou Csrlltle, repreientsllvo of the Canillan Attornej-Oencral, In prrtcnlliig the situlon Informed the Court that the "suzgeitlon" or llllou hu desired lo tile was re-seuted re-seuted with the knowledge nnd approval ap-proval of thelm)rlal Ujvsrnment nf On.1t llrltstu. This had thu ellUt nf making tjueiii Victoria virtually the tultor In the one, aud Cooper slm I) awltuis. ' At that time the Court had receive I no previous uotlcu of tie movemeut. Altorue) Qencral Miller was a pealed to by the Hupn me Court, but that ofll-civ), ofll-civ), fearing that the movement Involved In-volved some new t lau of strategy ou the part of the llrltlsh fjjvernuietii, asked for time to consider the question I)liuitchts from Washington today to-day anuouuee the 0 tailors of the Hurrenio Court In thu case. It holds that where the Alaska Court la acting as a District Court of the Uulted Htatea and In an admiralty jrccuedluj,", the Hu I reme Court has uwer of review bj wiiy uf writ of prohibition, r.ili means that Hits Alaska Court had Juris diction, anl therefore Its decision lu tbe "Baywanl" onAicatton Is not a nullity. Jlowevcr, lliooiluloii cf the court stems lasrJ tuiro or less una technicality, btcsute Copordid not at the time contest the question of uris-dlttlon uris-dlttlon In the Alaska tojrl. Thu oplulon also embodka a suggestion sugges-tion that legal tribunals ahould not Interfile with Ihe ae-ertloi a of territorial terri-torial sovereignty nude ly nthsr departments de-partments of goverumeut. I rum au Intimation it point ol vlw tho casu stands virtually whtru It was before Ccuptr took action. |