Show THE SEALS IN RT important legal questions question I 1 as to 0 oar fir rights in bearing sea BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT I 1 dritha vestel Li belled for roa chicz her hor plea and the bull cuts of f her defence the th cast case argued ahl ihly on boboth both sides sid WASI LINGTON nov 9 when the I 1 supreme u p r e me court assembled justice br bradley d le y waa was not present bat but he arrived and took his place on the bench juat just before the sayward case was called BO so the lull full court wag was present when the hearing began thia this celebrated case arises out of the seizure of a canadian steamer the W P bayward in bob behring ring ties for violation of the act get of congress making it a penalty to catch seals within the waters 0 of f B behrick ehr in g sea the vessel was libeled labeled un under der the admiralty laws ot the united states and after trial the united states district court of 1 alaska declared the forfeiture of the vessel the case was then brought to this court on motion for a writ of prohibition to atop stop the alaskan court from takla g measures to enforce the decree the ground for the motion being the contention that the court bad no jurisdiction to try the offense for the reason that it was committed more than three miles from the shore and therefore under the law of nations without the jurisdiction of the united state by this method it is sought to secure an opinion from fro m the court on the question wh which ich has been for a long time in controversy between the united states 1111 and d great britain as to the right of the former country to the exclusive control of the seal fisheries of behring sea the opening skirmish in this thi legal b battle attle resulted in favor of great britain the court deciding a against alast the preliminary plea by the united states that the supreme court could not aate entertain r tain even a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition since the legal proceedings began an agreement has been reached between the two governments under wh which ich it ia is hoped to secure a final and definite solution of the long pending diplomatic matic 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 be said eald the decision of this casa cass could no not t forestall anything any other branch of the government should do of course he i said bald it will stop any seizure of any foreign vessel under any existing law this court may in this case without expressing any 0 opinion aa as to rights of the united states bold hold that the seizure of this foreign vessel fifty nine miles from land was illegal under international I 1 law aw and under the existing law of the united states and not forestall any convention of the united states with iab reference to seal property carlisle the position taken up by the united states that this court was bound by the face of the pro proceedings read inge and could norgo not go behind what wha was shown bathe on he record submitted by the fudge judge of the alaska court first taking up the words of the libel which soto out the vessel was seized in that part of bearing behring 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 if it was a cession from any body it was a cession of the civilized world for russia could not cede code beyond three miles from the shore carlisle next took up the point raised by the united states that if the court could go behind the returns of the alaska judge there was evidence which it ma may be presumed might have justi justified fi the court ourt in holding that the seals were taken within the them three mile limit the attorney gen eral carlisle said in addition to the two small barriers of which be he had bad spoken had set up another more serious sone one namely thattie that the position taken by the executive in reference to Beli behring ting sea was the position taken on a political ca 11 question that of national zi rna a sovereignty 9 ty which absolutely binds the court whether that position be right or wrong 11 the argument be correct that regardless of the law of nations and the act of congress the president can extend the national bour boundaries darles far out into the ocean shall we stop there and not make assertions aa as to our full power ower and right which would Y in the I 1 language u ge of justice storey lead to univ universal mischief 7 lie ile then asked why if the united states could try british sealers for of fences in any of these waters why not british sailors for murder ue ile claimed the writ of prohibition must issue because of the fundamental want of jurisdiction in the alaska a court solicitor general tatt taft in opening the case for the united states said its position could be stated in I 1 two wo sentences first that the question which petitioner seeks here to raise I 1 ia 1 t presented to the court on the r record aad in the case if it is present ed to the court the question has been decided being a political question quee tion by the po political I 1 1 departments of the government and the court will not reverse or qualify that decision taking up the political phase of the argument the solicitor general said the government 0 did not deny that the f jurisdiction VI edic tion of the alaskan court and the venue of the offence offense were judicial questions to be decided by that court and by this court in a proper case care what he asserted was that the jurisdiction of that court and the venue of the offence offense by a single step was made inevitably to depend upon the national jurisdiction in behring sea thai that iss is a political question and that the decision of the executive and of congress on that political question is conclusive not only upon this con court rt bat but upon every citizen within th the e jurisdiction |