The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-11-08

bIOcM00e ny umC OmIVe0 St0tGN.
"t24) since the gOvermment Of
Great Britain has laid much en-
phasis ON the ruling of the Supreme
Court Of the United states I'm the
Sprfnghok case, that goods of CON.
traband character seised while go
Ing to the neutral port Of Nassau.
though actually bound for the
bIockndcd ports Of the South. were
subject to condemna ton. II in not
, inappropriate to direct attention to
the British view of this case In
England prior to the present war.
as expressed by Sir Edward Grey in
his instructions to the British dele
gates to the London Conference in
1908,
SIT II exceedingly doubtful
whether the decision of Supreme
Court was in reality meant to cover
q case of blockade-running in which
| no question Of contrnband arose.
| Certainly IL such was the inten-
tion, the decision would pro tanto
be In conflict with the practice of
the British courts. His Majeaty'a
government sees no reason for de-
parting from that practice, and you
should endeavor to obtain general
recognition of its correctness.'
TT may be pointed out also that the
circumstances surrounding the Spring.
from those OF the present day to which
the rule laid down in that case is
sought to be applied. When the SPRING
box case arose the ports of the Con-
federate States were effectively block
AIDED by the naval forces Of the United
states, though no neutral port were
closed, and continuous voyage
through a neutral port required an all
sea voyage terminating in an attempt
- bA
| "(25) Third 1t appears to be the
position of Great Britain that II. as the
United States alleges, American citi-
gems or American interests are direct
ly and adversely affected by the Brit
ish policies OF contraband and nonin-
tercourse, resulting in interference
with ships and cargoes, they should
seek redress In the prize courts which
the British government have estab-
lished, and that, pending the exhaua-
ton Of such legal remedies with the
result Of a denial of justice, the Brit
ish government cannot continue to
deal through the diplomatic channels
with the individual cases
"(26) 1t Is declared that this was
the course followed by the United
States during the American Civil War
| and the Spanish War. and that both
/ countries have supported the prac-
tice by allowing their prize court de-
cisions when shown to be unjust or
inadequate. to be reviewed by an In
! ternational tribunal. az wss done I'M
| der the treaties OF 1874 and 1871.
The ground upon which this conten-
! ton Is put forth, and the results
/ which would follow, II the course OF
| procedure suggested were accepted,
give the impression that His MaJesty's
! government do not rely upon its
soundness or strength. Nevertheless.
since 1t has been advanced, / cannot
refrain from presenting certain con-
sfderations which will show that the
| proposed course embodes the form
rather than the substance of redress.
The cases which the British govern
ment would have claimants present
to their prize courts are essentially
different from cases arising wholly
within the jurisdiction OF a foreign
country They result from acts COM
mitted by the British naval authori-
! ties upon the high seas. where the
jurisdiction over neutral vessels is ac-
CURED solely by international law.
Vessels OF foreign nationality, flying
neutral flag and finding their pro-
lection In the country of their flag,
are seized without facts varranting a
reasonable suspicion that they are
destined to blockaded ports OF tho en-
envy or that their cargoes are con-
: traband. although the possession of
such facts Is. by International law.
essential to render a seizure legal
! The officers appear to find their JUS
LITIGATION in the orders in council and
regulations of the British govern
ment, In spite Of the fact chat in many
OF the present cases the orders In
council and the reg ulatIons for their
enforcement are themselves com
/ planned of by claimants as contrary
to International law. Yet the very
courts which. 1t Is said, are to dis
pcnse justice to dissatisfied claimants
This is Enthusiastically indicated to be
the case In the British pote OF July
| 81, which states that:
| British prize courts according to
the ancient form of commission un-
! der which they sit are to determine
cases according to the course Of ai-
miralty and the law of nations and
! the statutes, rules and regulations
for the time being In force IN that
behalf
/ This principle. the note adds. has
recently been announced and adhered
to by the British prize court in the
case or the Zamora. 1t is manifest.
therefore. that, If prizs courts are
bound by the laws and regulations
under which seizures and detentions
are made, and which claimants al
lege are in contrayention Of the law
! OF nations. those courts are power
less to pass upon the rea. ground OF
complaint or to give redress for
wrongs Of this nature Nevertheless,
it is seriously suggested that claim
ants are free to request the prize
court to rule upon a claim of con-
t1ict between an order in council and
rule OF international law. How can
a tribunal fettered in its Jurisdiction
and procedure by municipal enact
ncnts declare itself emancipated
from their restrictions ana at liberty
/ to apply the rules Of international
/ law with freedom? The very laws
and regulations which bind the court
are now matters of dispute between
the government OF the United States
and that Of his Britannia Majesty. II
Great Britain followed. as she de-
clares that she did, the course of
! first referring claimants to local
! remedies in cases arising out Of
American wars, it is presumed that
she did SO because OF her knowledge
or understanding that the United
States had not sought to limit the
jurisdiction OF its courts of prize by