St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1915-08-07

It is impossible to maintain that the
right Of a belligerent to intercept the
'mommerce of his enemy can be lin
tied in the way suggested by the
American notes on the subject.
"There are many cases. he says,
Tin which proofs that the goods were
enemy property would afford strong
evidence that they were of enemy or
igin or enemy destination and 1t Is
only in such cases that we are de-
tanning them. Where proof Of enemy
ownership would afford no evidence
Of such origin or destination, we are
mot in practice of OBTAINING the
goods"
Sir Edwards note closes with the
observation that Figures Of recent
months show that the increased OPP
portunities afforded by the war for
American commerce have more than
compensated for the loss of the Ger
man and Austrian markets.
We shall continue to apply these
measures with every desire to occa-
sion the least possible amount of in
convenience to persons engaged in
Legitimate commerce"
In the supplemental note. which
replies to. the American caveat CIV
ing 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
courts. :" "-s=' 49, = -
Sir Edward compares the rules
governing British prize courts, to the
rules applied by American courts, re-
plicable in cases before the prize
court, the government of the United
States refers, for / am, not aware OF
any. differences existing between the
two countries as to the principles of
law applicable in cases before such
views as to the principles of law ap-
ferring especially to the American
case of the Amy Warwick before the
United States Supreme Court where
| it was held that prize courts are
subject to the instructions of their
own sovereign. In the absence OF
such instruction their Jurisdiction
and rules of decision are to be as
certained by reference to the known
powers Of such tribunals and the
principals by which they are gov
erned under the public law and the
practice of nations. It would ap-
pear, therefore, that the principles
applied by the prize courts Of the
two countries are Identical
The supplemental note then pro-
ceeds to demonstrate the practica-
bility of prize court being governed
by international law in the form OF
orders in council. It finally comes
to the case of the steamship Zamora
in the present war, in which the
British court declared: THE ma
lions Of the world need not be ap-
prehensive that orders in council
will emanate from the government
of this country In such violation OF
the acknowledged laws of nations
that it is conceivable that our prize
tribunals. holding the law Of ma
tons In reverence, would feel called
upon to disregard and refuse obedi.
ence to the provisions Of such or
ders."
Sir Edward points out that the
legality Of the orders in council Of
Of the measures taken under them
have not yet been brought to q de
cision in q prize court, but he re.
minds the United States that set IL
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 principles
of International law, and is there.
fore not binding upon the court. II
the prize court declines to accept has
contentious, and II, after such q de.
cision has been upheld on appeal BY
the judicial committee Of His Ma.
jesty's Privy Council, the govern.
ment of the United States consider
that there is serious ground for hold
ing that the decision is incorrect and
infringes the rights OF their citizens
It is open to them to claim that Il
should be subjected to review by an
international tribunal
Asks International Court,
The Matamores cases of. the Civil
war then are cited to show that the
United States Supreme Court held II
had the right to reverse prize court
decisions and that there was nc
doubt Of the jurisdiction of an in
ternational tribunal to review the de.
cisions Of the prize courts of the
United States, where the parties al.
leging themselves grieved had prose.
cuted their appeals to the court OF
last resort. ~..e
II the United States should be dis
satisfied with British prize court de.
cisions as sustained by the .Privy
Council, the British government is
prepared to concert with the United
States Tin order to decide upon the
best way of applying the
principle to the situation which
would then have arisen
| To the American note in the case
of the steamship Neches, which sum.
marily demanded the expeditions re-
lease of the American-owned goods
determined under the orders In
council. 'the international invalidity
Of which the government of the Unit.
ed States regards as plainly illus
trated by the present instance, >
Great Britain replied that "while
these acts of the German govern.
ment continue ("sinking neutral as
we'll as British merchant ships, ir.
respective of destination or origin Of
cargo, and without proper regard fol
safety of. passengers), it seems
neither reasonable nor just that His
Maiestv'a government ah0nld hi