Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-01-06
FOR LARGER SCOPE
Suggestion Regarding Inter-
national Prize Court.
KNOX ADDRESSES POWERS
Proposes a Court of Abitral JUS
tice.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
Why He Prefers to Utilize an Exist
ing Body Rather Than to
Create New Institution.

With a view OF making international
arbitration judicial in fact as well as in
theory. Secretary Knox has addressed a
circular note to the powers. proposing
that the Jurisdiction OF the international
prize court. authorized in 1907. by The
Hague peace conference, be extended so
as to make IT a court Of arbitral JUS
tice. This note was dated October u.s.
1900 No responses have been received
A statement explaining the contents of
the note and the reasons proposal was
made was given out last night by Secre-
tary Knox.
The international prize court was to be
composed OF fifteen judges. eight OF whom
were to be chosen from the larger mari
time countries. Germany Austr.a-Hun-
gary. France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan
and the United States. and were to serve
six years. The other judges were to be
chosen from the remaining nations, and
we're to sit for a longer or shorter period
as determined by the maritime standing
of their respective countries.
Reason for Suggestion.
In his statement Secretary Knox ex-
plains his reason for suggesting that the
jurisdiction of the prize court be extend
ed. He says:
1.-The advantage Of investing the prize
court with the functions of a court of
arbitral justice needs nc argument. be-
cause 1t is obviously easier to utilize an
existing body than to create new in
stitution, and as the judges of the prize
court must necessarily be versed in in
ternational law. they could well be in
trusted with any question susceptible of
arbitration. The proposition has the very
great advantage of providing the ma
lions with a permanent court Of arbitra-
ton for the peaceful settlement Of con-
troversies In times Of peace: whereas
the prize court: as such. presupposes a
ture Of property is illegal.
Utilizing the method Of composition
OF the prize court by thus investing 1t
with the Jurisdiction and functions of
court Of arbitral justice. would constitute
thus have for the states freely consenting
to and accepting the proposition one in
ternational judiciary to adjudge cases
arising in peace, as we'll as controversies
thus be permanently constituted and
would in reality be permanent, obviating
the delay involved in the creation OF
temporary tribunal and developing inter:
sidered precedents by judges carefully
chosen and acting under a sense of jul
dicial responsibility. Arbitration would
not merely be, as both Hague confer
ences have said. the most ef1cacious and
most equitable method Of settling dis
putes which diplomacy has failed to adj
just. but would be judicial in fact as we'll
as In theory"
Appeals From National Courts.
Another suggestion was made to the
powers in regard to the modification Of
the status Of the prize court. so as to
hasten formation. Secretary Knox pro-
posed that nations confronted with con-
stitutional objections in the matter Of d.
rect appeal from their national courts to
the prize court might present. instead Of
the judgment Of their national courts. the
question involved In the capture at issue.
and that the proceedings in such a case
should be In the nature OF a retrial de
novo. and that the Judgment OF the in
ternational prize court should be limited
to the award of damages for the illegal
capture.
AS constituted by The Hague conference
the prize court was to be a court of ap-
peal. either from the original national
court In which the case was tried or
from the judgment of its appellate court.
THE United States has not submitted
Judgment ;. of Its court to international
although it has very frequently pre-
scented questions involved in its courts to
mixed commissions. and has promptly
paid the awards when the decision Of the
mixed commission has taxed the United
States with liability not found by it's
national court. Appeal from court OF
the United States might raise a delicate
end difficult question of constitutional
law and render difficult, if not impossi-
BILE. the ratification Of the prize court by
the United States. The difficulty is one
OF form rather than substance, for wheth-
er the principle involved in the judG-
ment be decided or the judgment of
ma lional court he subnitted. the result
will be the same. namely, a decision upon
the legality of the capture