New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-14
ENGLAND'S QUEER PROCEEDING.


1t is not an unprecedented circumstance 1oi
the Supreme Court of the United States to have
the sovereign of foreign nation before it as
q Migant Napoleon III and Ferdinand VII %
Spain were both plaintiffs in actions at TINS
bar but their complaints related to themselves
and to their personal rights. The appearance
of the sovereign of one country in the courts OF
another as a petitioner in behalf of a subjects
rights was, however until Sir John Thomson
filed his Behring Sea papers on Monday, to the
best of our knowledge, unheard-of. Certainly
it was unheard-of and altogether amazing that
such an action should be taken as an appeal
from the supreme Executive authority. The
United States has seized private vessel owned
by British subject, and the seizure goes as a
matter of course into the courts to be passed
upon. But before the courts have acted the
British Government takes up the case and pro-
tests to the President in behalf OF its subject
This haste is, Of itself, undue and not in con-
fufmity with the customs of nations. The
action of the courts of one country IN en-
forcing either municipal law or the law OF ma
tons upon a foreigner is not conclusive, but it
is the practice of States to wait and to see what
foreign court actually does before interven-
ing. The assumption is that the courts will do
what is right, and until a foreigner has ex-
hausted his remedies under the laws OF the
country with which he is involved, his home
Government should not interfere.
Great Britain, in the Behring Sea seizures,
did not pursue this recognized course. She
made haste to take up the causes of her ag-
grieved subjects and TO press the United States
for damages She complained in the usual
way to the usual authomty-the head Of the
State and now, her claim being by him dis
puted, but being still in the course of dplo-
matte adjudication, she turns from him and ap-
peals to another branch of the Government de-
string it to disavow the acts and assertions of
coordinate authority to which, under the
Constitution the conduct of foreign affairs Is
explicitly assigned! II requires no great legal
knowledge to imagine what the answer OF the
Supreme Court will say. 1t will inform Lord
Salisbury. in effect if not in terms, perhaps in
the very language of Mr.. Jefferson, that the
President is the only channel of communication
between this country and foreign nations"
and that I" it is from him alone that foreign ma
tons or their agents are to learn what is or has
been the will of the Nation and whatever he
communicates as such they have right and
are bound to consider as the expression of the
Nation, and no foreign nation can be allowed
to question it or to interpose between him and
any branch of Government" While, upon the
one hand, it is not in the power Of the Elk
ecutive to interfere by its action with cases
pending - the courts, it is equally incumbent
upon the judiciary to leave the President I'M
trammelled in any negotiation he may be carry
ing on, and any action asked of the court
which could have the effect of interfering with
the President would be impossible.
We find it difficult to understand how Lord
Salisbury was induced to put himself in such
an absurd position. TO appeal from a court to
an Executive is natural and frequent, but to
appeal from an Executive to a court is pro-
ceeding of which there is no previous record
in the practice Of nations Sir John Thomson's
petition asks our judiciary to hunliate the
head of the Nation, to say that his views and
proceedings in a matter placed by our highest
law solely in his keeping are wrong and I'M
lawful We cannot believe that the British
Government intended to insult the President Of
the United States, but it can scarcely have
given much consideration to the effect and
essential meaning of the step they have taken.