Opinion of the Court.

subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound, by any expressions in the Constitution as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately, the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?

Syllabus.

Suppose in the Congress that passed this act some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that, if any Roman Catholic church in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this country and enter into its service as pastor and priest; or any Episcopal church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar; or any Baptist church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon; or any Jewish synagogue with some eminent Rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to prosecution and punishment, can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was in effect the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil, and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.

The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

In re COOPER, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL.

No. 6. Original. Argued November 9, 10, 1891.- Decided February 29, 1892.

The District Court for the District of Alaska has jurisdiction in admiralty to forfeit vessels for violating the provisions of Rev. Stat. § 1956 on any of the navigable waters of the United States which were acquired by the treaty with Russia, concluded March 30, 1857, 15 Stat. 539.

Syllabus.

Prohibition will not go after judgment and sentence, unless want of jurisdiction appears on the face of the proceedings; but, before judgment, the superior court can examine not simply the process and pleadings technically of record, but also the facts and evidence upon which action was taken.

United States District Courts, sitting in admiralty, are courts of superior jurisdiction, and every intendment is made in favor of their decrees; and when it appears that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and either that the defendant was duly served with process or that he voluntarily appeared and made defence, the decree is not open collaterally to any inquiry upon the merits or jurisdiction dependent on those facts.

On an application for a writ of prohibition, the inquiry being confined to the matter of jurisdiction, only the record proper should be looked into, and not documents and other evidence in addition to the record which may be sent up under the provisions of Rev. Stat. § 698.

The latter part of section 7 of the act of May 17, 1884, 23 Stat. 24, 26, may be read as follows: "And the final judgments and decrees of said District Court of Alaska may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States as in other cases;" and, being so read, its meaning is that this court may review the final judgments or decrees of that court, as in cases of the same kind from other courts.

When a party aggrieved by a judgment has an appeal to this court which becomes inefficacious through his neglect, a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of the judgment will not issue from this court. The act of February 16, 1875, 18 Stat. 315, c. 77, § 1, applies to appeals taken from decrees of the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska, sitting in admiralty.

At a time when a diplomatic correspondence was going on between the United States and Great Britain respecting the extent of the jurisdiction of the former in the waters of Behring Sea, a libel in admiralty was filed in the District Court of Alaska, alleging a seizure by the United States authorities of a vessel "within the limits of Alaska Territory, and in the waters thereof and within the civil and judicial District of Alaska," to wit: "Within the waters of that portion of Behring Sea belonging to the United States and said district, on waters navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burden," and charging that "the said vessel and her captain, officers and crew were then and there found engaged in killing fur seals within the limits of Alaska Territory and in the said waters thereof, in violation," etc. The findings of fact followed this description, and described the act complained of as done "within the waters of Alaska." No request was made to have the findings made more specific as to the place where the offence was committed. The vessel being condemned, the claimants appealed to this court. The appeal was duly entered and docketed, and was then dismissed on application of the appellant, who applied for leave to file an application for a writ of prohibition to restrain the court below from enforcing the sen

Statement of the Case.

tence or the decree of condemnation. Leave being granted, the petition was filed, and it is now Held,

(1) That the legal inference from the findings of fact is, that the act took place within the jurisdiction of the United States;

(2) That an appeal lay to this court from the decree of the District Court;

(3) That, the District Court having found the facts, this court would be limited, on appeal, to the consideration of the questions of law presented by the record;

(4) That the District Court on the pleadings and facts found had jurisdiction of the case, and the petitioner might have prosecuted an appeal; and that the appeal taken was insufficient for the petitioner's purposes, because of his neglect to have included in the findings the exact locality of the seizure;

(5) That for this reason the writ of prohibition should not issue: the court resting its denial of it on this ground, although it might have placed it upon the well settled principle that an application to a court to review the action of the political department of the government, upon a question pending between it and a foreign power, and to determine whether the government was right or wrong, made while diplomatic negotiations were still going on, should be denied.

THE Court stated the case as follows:

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska, to restrain the enforcement of a sentence of forfeiture and condemnation entered in that court, September 19, 1887, on a libel filed by the United States against the schooner W. P. Sayward, upon the ground that that court was without jurisdiction in the premises. The petitioner, Cooper, is the owner of the vessel, and with his petition a suggestion was presented by Sir John Thompson, K. C. M. G., Her Britannic Majesty's Attorney General of Canada, with the knowledge and approval of the Imperial government of Great Britain, requesting the aid of the court for the claimant, a subject of her Britannic Majesty.

The motion for leave to file the application was made on the twelfth of January, 1891, and leave was granted on the second day of February. The application having accordingly been filed, a rule was issued against the judge of the District

Statement of the Case.

Court of Alaska to show cause why the writ should not go. The petition is set out in extenso in In re Cooper, Petitioner, 138 U. S. 404. The main averments are that the schooner W. P. Sayward, a British vessel, while lawfully sailing upon the high seas in latitude 44° 43' north and longitude 167° 51' west, and fifty-nine miles from any land whatsoever, was forcibly seized by an armed revenue vessel of the United States and forcibly carried into the port of Sitka, and there forcibly detained and delivered to the United States marshal, and by the attorney for the United States of the District of Alaska libelled in the District Court, and by said court condemned for having killed fur seal at the place of seizure. It was further averred that the decree of forfeiture was made and entered September 19, 1887; that the petitioner, having been admitted as the actual owner of the said schooner as claimant, appealed to this court April 26, 1888, and docketed said appeal here October 30, 1888, but dismissed the same, (January 12, 1891,) because advised that an appeal would not lie, and that the decree was and is a nullity; and that all the matters of fact alleged in the petition, save those of which this court takes judicial notice, appear by the record and proceedings of the District Court; and it was claimed in argument that the petitioner, having referred to the original record and proceedings of the District Court, was entitled to have the same read and considered as part of his case in this court, and he accordingly filed a complete and authenticated transcript of the entire proceedings in the District Court, as he alleged.

A return was made in due course by John S. Bugbee, judge of the court in question, stating that he was not such judge at the time the decree was entered, but was appointed and qualified on December 7, 1889, and he thereupon sets forth "the final record of the cause in which said decree of forfeiture was made and entered, as prepared under section 750 of the Revised Statutes of the United States from the files, minutes and journal of said District Court of the United States, District of Alaska," as follows:

The libel dated and filed September 13, 1887:

"The libel of information of M. D. Ball, attorney of the