The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-11-20
THE BRITISH COURTS.
Why Should the United States Not
Trust In Their Justice?

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN-Sir: I'M
doubtedly England, in the stress OF war.
has violated certain generally recog-
nized principles Of international law
and our traders land through them
the rest of us) have suffered therefrom'
We have sent an exhaustive protest deal
ing with the subject and forcibly pre-
senting our views. 1t states u con-
tentions very clearly. although In some
respects IL invites a response winch
may prove awkward.
1t intimates that English courts can
not be trusted to decide a question OF
international law in accordance with the
PRINCIPLES of that law that they would
be controlled BY some order In coun-
Gil. Those who know them would ex-
pect our Federal courts when con-
fronted with such a question OF inter-
probation to decide IL according to the
principles of international Law although
some Joint resolution Of Congress or a
statute OF the United States called for "A
different decision. The English courts
have been jealous of interference with
their ~prerogative by crown. council or
Parliament, and II seems not quite
courteous. In advance OF their decision,
to suggest that they cannot be trusted
to pass as other courts do on questions
Of international law.
An English prize court has rendered
n decision adverse to the American
claimants Of cargo on -four or five YES.
sells that case IL now on appeal and
! the intimation OF our communication ID
| that the decision Of the first instance
! court was wrong and hat the decision
| OF the Appeal Court will also be wrong
But we are left wholly in the dark as
to what the evidence was. the impress
| sion is conveyed that there was no ieal
evidence. only suspicion awakened by
the circumstance that the shipment ex-
ceeded the needs OF the neutral country
20 which 1t was oetensibly shipped.
Now, some of us have heard on what
seems to be good authority that in thes,
cases there was a mass or evidence
sworn testimony uncontradicted and
documents whose authenticity was not
disputed, which might have led a Fed.
eral prize court tn reach the same con-
clusion. This testimony IL not sealed
up II Ia accessible. n Ii some one
would let US know what Il In we might
! be able more intelligently TO form oul
conclusions az to the trustworthiness OF
an English court. There seems to be
overmuch censoring here about man,
| things we are not at war and a ful
| disclosure of all that's ~pigeonholed should
not be denied Us.
Again, our protest quotes the text Of
the Instructions of the Secretary OF
the Navy dated August IS. 1862. whict
are in line with the propositions whtcN
We now advance. But the civil wa
was still young in 1862 the ingenious
use of Nassau as n stalking horse hat
not then been fully perfected. What
later instructions may or may not b.
dug up out OF our published records
and they comprise many printed vo
umes. we do not yet know, but there IL
a chance that the draughtsmen OF Eng
lands reply may find something. \
relative OF mine was in the Atlantic
and in the Gulf squadrons during th'
later years OF the war, and from wha'
heard from him 7 should be inclined
to doubt whether the instructions %
1862 held through to the end.
NEW YORK. November is. f. H.. L.