The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-08-04
Grrat Rritain,s Reply.

Great Britain's reply to the United
States caveat regarding British prize
court proceedings contends that British
orders In council are in conformity with
the principles of international law, and
cites remedies open to Americans not
satisfied with prize court decisions.
Ambassador w. H. Page TO the Secre-
tary of State.
(Telegram)
American Embassy. London.
July 81. 1915.
Your 1s4s, July II. p. NJ. have
today received the following note from
Sir Edward Grey:
Foreign once, July 81, 1918.
your Excellency:
-. have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of the note. dated the 18th
instant. In which you were good enough
to communicate to me for the informa-
ton Of His Majesty's government the
opinion held by the government of the
United States that. in view of the diff
ferences which they understand to exist
between the two countries as to the
principles Of law applicable in cases
before the prize court. they could not
recognize the validity of proceedings
taken in His Majesty's prize court In
derogation of the rights Of citizens of
the United States.
D.
verxence of Views as to the principles
of law applicable In cases before the
prize court the government of the
United States refer. for / am not aware
of any differences existing between the
two countries as to the principles OF
law applicable in cases before such
courts.
80. British prize courts, according 10
the ancient form of commission under
which they sit. are to determine cases
which come before them according to
the course of admiralty and the law
of nations, and the statutes. rules and
regulations fer the time being In force
in that behalf As to the principles
applied by the American prize courts.
note that in the case OF the Amy
Warwick @ Sprague. 1921 IL was held
that prize courts are subject to the
instructions of their own sovereign. In
the absence of such instructions. their
Jurisdiction and rules OF decision are
to be ascertained by reference to the
known powers of such tribunals and
the principles by which they are gov
erned under the public law and the
practice of nations. 1t would appear,
therefore. that the principles applied
by the prize courts of the two coun-
tries are identical.
Quotes From Lord StoweIi.
-. AS illustrating furtner the atti-
tude adopted by the Judges of British
prize courts toward these two sources
Of law. the municipal legislation of its
sovereign on the one hand and the
principles of international law on the
other should like to refer Your Ex-
ceilency to a classical passage In the
judgment of Lord Stoweli. In the case
of the Fox. In which that famous Judge
observed in the course of the discus
sion: A question has been stated. What
would be the duty of the court under
orders in council that were repugnant
TO the law of natfonse 1t has been
contended on one side that the court
would at all events be bound to en-
force the orders in council: on the
other, that the court would be bound
To- uanpl% the rules, OF the, Law Of. ,na~-
lions adapted to the particular case
in disregard of the orders In council.
This court is bound to admit the law
of nations TO the subjects OF other coun-
tries In the different relations in which
they may be placed toward this coun-
try and it's government. That IL what
others have a right to demand for their
subjects and to complain II they re-
ceive 1t not. This Is its unwritten law
evidenced in the course OF it's decisions
and collected from the common usa &c
OF civilized States. At the same time
II In strictly true that by the Con-
stitution of this country the King In
council possesses Legislative rights over
this court and has power to Issue orders
and instructions which II Ia bound TO
obey and enforce. and these constitute
the written law of this court These