The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-26
NEW YORK HERALD MONDAY AUGUST 2e l872-TRPLE SHEET

dained the detention Of these thirty vessels unri
Spain and Peru should have regulated their diner,
ences. This they did, thanks TO the mediation OF
the United States.
JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL.
question OF diligence presents itself with refer
ence to any erroneous decree OF Court OF Admi-
raty
propose, as a principle, that the government
which undertakes Judicial pursuit and which SUBJ
mits itself without appeal to an erroneous decree,
has not the right to cite that decree in order to ex.
cuse Interior wrongs belonging to the same class OF
cases. That is believe, to fail doubly IN the due
diligence presented by the rules OF the treaty.
abstain rom discussing that question:
But affirm that the erroneous decree does not
bind in any way. That is indeed, evident. More
affirm further that the decree does not bind in
any way an international tribunal
This principle is ennncated and sufficiently dis
cussed in the ''nstitutes' OF Rutherforth, an Eng
lish work OF merit and authority.
Wheaton and other authorities adopt the views
OF Rutherfortn.
This question has been raised by the English and
American commissioners appointed to law down
the stpulations OF what is called the Jay Treaty.
The following circumstance is reported IN the
memoirs OF Mr.. Trumbul, one OF the secretaries Of
that Commission. 1t appears that, being In doubt,
the commissioners consulted the Earl OF Lough-
borough, then Lord Chancellor. He decided
that the commissioners, in their charac-
ter of international tribunal, possessed q
complete Jurisdiction and could revise the DEGREES
tIce to the government wrOnged in its interests
In those Of its subjects. The Commissioners acted
conceive that such is the recognized Jurisdiction
In the case Of special claims by numerous interna-
tlcna commissions, which have sat since then In
England and in America.
CONCLUSION.
have just treated some of the questions put by
the counsel OF Great Britain solely for the sake OF
satisfying my conscience. l do not believe that
they are of a nature to exercise preponderating
influence upon the minds OF the arbitrators. The
rules OF the treaty are decisive in all the questions
raised by the United States If these rules are the
true expression Of common law, as am convinced,
all is well; If they pass beyond the common law
they constitute authOritativey the conventional
law of the tribunal
1t matters little what is the Interpretation of the
municipal law OF England. The Interpretation of
the law OF the United States matters still less. The
laws OF the other States OF Europe matter nothing
The conduct Of the United States towards Spain or
Mexico. or even towards Great Britain is not here
in question. There Is only one question to be de-
cided-Has England failed yes or no, in using the
''due diligence" required by the Treaty of WASH
ingtonY
The United States sustain here principles which
are, in their opinion. of high Importance tor all mar
ine peoples, and above all. tor Great Britain more
even than for the United States. We therefore
await, with respect and submission, but also with
out inquietude, the judgment of this august tri-
bunal.