102 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



for that pnrjiose wliich, according to iut«?rnational law, it would not 

 otherwise possess." The Governmeut of the United States hassteadily 

 held just the reverse of tlie position Lord Salisbury has imputed to it. 

 It holds that the ownership of the islands upon which the seals breed, 

 eitv /nteres^sTu *^^'^* ^^^^ habit of the seals in regularly resorting thither aud 



sea'ls). ' IS*^ rearing their young thereon, that their going out from the islands 



in search of food and regularly returning thereto, aud all the facts 

 aud incidents of their relation to the islands, give to the I'uited States 

 a property interest therein; that this property interest was claimed 

 and exercised by Russia during the Avhole period of its sovereignty 

 over the land and waters of Alaska; that England recognized this 

 property interest, so far as recognition is implied by abstaining from 

 all interference with it during the whole period of Russia's ownership 

 of Alaska, and during the lirst nineteen years of the sovereignty of 

 the United States. 



It is yet to be determined whether the lawless intrusion of Cana- 

 dian vessels in 1886 aud subsequent years has changed the law aud 

 equity of the case theretofore prevailing. 



It does not appear, liowever, that the special rights uow 

 apparently claimed by the United States in respect of a 

 s])ecial ])r()perty in fnr-seals have ever been otherwise 

 advanced or more detiuitely formnlated than as above 

 mentioned. 



CASE OF THE "W. P. SAYWARD." 



Stenographic In 1891, in the course of the Argument before the 

 Sentriuctsf of Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the '' W. 

 the "W. P. saj- P. Sayward," one of the learned Judges inquired of Mr. 



ward,"p. 9C. * w-i. r\ ^ txi -n 



Attorney! reneral Miller: 



See also Brief Do you mean that the Political Department has decided in terms 

 for Unit e d what constitute the waters of Alaska, or only that the United States 

 States, ex parte |jgg jurisdiction over certain waters for certain purposes? 

 T. H. Cooper, ^' ^ "^ 



owner and claini- 



aatof the school!- To wliicli Mr. Miller replied: 



er "W. P. Say- 

 ward, "p. 106. 



CLAIM OF TERRITORIAI. JITRISDICTION OVER 100 MILES. 



That is what I understand they have decided; that they have juris- 

 diction, and that they have territorial jurisdiction over those waters 

 to the extent of 100 miles. 



Judgment Mr. Chief Justicc Fuller, delivering the opinion of the 

 Supreme" Court! Supreuic Court of the United States in the case of the 

 ex parte T. u! " W. P. Say Ward," on the 2yth February, 18912, referred to 

 and^dainiaXof the scizurcs in the following terms: 



"W. p. Say- If W6 assume that the record shows tlie locality of the alleged 

 ward," p. 16. offense and seizure as stated, it also shows that oflicers of the United 

 States, acting under the orders of their (lovcrumeut, seized this 

 vessel engaged iu c;itching seal aud took her into the nearest jiort; 

 and that the Law Otticers of the Goverument libelled lier and pro- 

 ceeded against her for the violation of the laws of the United States, 

 in the District Court, resulting iuher condemnation. 



How did it happen that the officers received such orders? It must 

 be admittecl that they were given in the assertion on the part of 

 134 this Governnu'ut of territorial jurisdiction over Behring Sea to 

 an extent exceeding 59 miles from the shores of Alaska;* that 

 this territorial jurisdiction, in tlie enforcement of the laws protecting 

 seal iisherics, was asserted by actual seizures during the seasons of 

 1886, 1887, aud 1889, of a number of British vessels ; tiiat the Govern- 

 ment persistently maintains that sucli jurisdiction belongs to it, based 

 not only on the peculiar nature of the seal tisherics aud the ])ro[)erty 



* The Supreme Court, howevei", expressed no opiuiou as to the legal 

 validity of the jurisdiction so asserted. 



