Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-08-04
amount of Inconvenience to persons on
gagged in legitimate commerce.
II have ctc.,
PAGE"
WILL. SEND NOTE ON COTTON
SITUATION TO WASHINGTON
"E. GREY.

WILL SEND NOTE ON COTTON
| SITUATION TO WASHINGTON
LONDON. August s.-The diplomatic
correspondence between London and
Washington concerning delays to Amer
lean commerce and tho orders In coun-
Gil VIII be published hero tomorrow
morning. Tho Foreign ONCE explains
that all phases OF tho controversy be-
tween the two countries. except with
regard to cotton arc covered In the
| notes. and that when a decision Is ar
rived at on the cotton situation. a note
on this subject probably will be sent
to Washington.
No question ut this time Is giving tho
| government here moro vexatious mo-
ments than cotton. The government
has indicated that It's decision not to
| treat the staple as contraband Is not
| irrevoca BILE, but 1T Is not yet convinced
! that the proposed alternatives might
not cause more trouble and friction
than tho present system of OBTAINING
cotton which Is suspected OF having
an enemy destination.
The correspondence concerning the
seizure OF the American steamer Neches
while bound from Rotterdam to the
United States with a cargo OF Belgian
and German goods. already has been
! followed by positive results. as several
of the consiEnments originating in Bel
GUM which were aboard that steamer
| have been released and handed over to
the American claimants
| Official circles here are not opti-
mistic that the British replies will end
the shipping controversy. but 1t is felt
that the negotiations will not come to
an impasse.
GREY NOT AWARE OF ANY
EXISTING DIFFERENCES
In the supplemental note. which is a
reply TO the American caveat giving
notice that the United States would not
recognize the orders In council In lieu
OF international law. Sir Edward Grey
writes he does mot understand to what
divergence OF views as TO the principles
OF law applicable in cases before the
prize court the government of the
| United States refer. for l am not aware
| OF any differences existing between tho
two countries as to the principles Of law
applicable in cases before such courts"
Sir Edward compares the rules gov
erninE British prize courts to the rules
applied by American courts, referring
especially to the American case Of the
supreme Court. where It was held that
prize courts are subject TO the instruc-
tons Of their own sovereign. In the alb
sence OF such instructions. their juris-
diction and rules Of decision are TO be
ascertained by reference TO the known
powers of such tribunals and the prin-
| ciples by which they are governed un-
! der the public law and the practice OF
nations. II would appear. therefore,
that the principles applied by the prize
courts OF the two countries are Identi-
| cal"
The supplemental note then proceeds
with a long legal argument to demon
strate the practica bility OF a prize court
being governed by international law and
at the same time by municipal law in
the form OF orders In council. II finally
comes TO the case Of the steamer Ia.
mora in the present war, in which the
| British court declared:
The nations of the world need not
| be apprehensive that orders in council
Will emanate from the government Of
this country In such violation of the
acknowledged laws Of nations that IL
Is conceivable that our prize tribunals
holding the law Of nations IN reverence
would feel called upon to disregard
and refuse obedience to the provisions
OF such orders"
| SUBJECTED TO REVIEW
By INTERNATIONAL COURT
| Sir Edward then points out that the
legality Of the orders in council or of
the measures taken under them, have
not yet been brought to decision in
/ n prize court. but he reminds the
United States that 1T Is open to any
United States citizen whose claim is
before the prize court. to contend that
any order in council which may affect
his claim is inconsistent with the prin-
ciples OF international law, and is
therefore not binding upon the court
! If the prize court declines to accept his
contentious and. II after such de-
cision has been upheld on appeal by
the judicial committee Of His Majesty's
| Privy Council, the government of The
United States consider that there Is
serious ground for holding that the
decision is incorrect and infringes the
rights of their citizens. it Is open to
them 10 claim that 1t should be sub
jected to review by an international
! tribunal"
| The celebrated Matamoros cases OF
! the Civil War are cited to show that
\ the Supreme Court of the United States
; held II had the right to reverse the
decisions of prize courts. and that
! there was no doubt Of the jurisdiction
Of an international tribunal to review
the decisions OF the prize courts of the
United States. where the parties al