The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-08-04

duty under such an emergency;
 because it cannot, without ex-
 treme indecency, presume that
 any such emergency will happen.
 And it is the less disposed to en-
 tertatn them because it's own ob-
 servation and experience attest
 the general conformity of such orders and instructions to it's
 principles of unwritten law.
 D. The above passage has recently been quoted and adopted by the presi- dent of the prize court in the case of the zamora, in which Sir s. Evans said: T make bold to express the hope and belief that 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 it is conceivable that our prize tribunals, holding the law of na- tions in reverence, would be called upon to disregard and refuse obedi- ence to the provisions of such or ders.''
 International Adjudication.
 6. Tn the note which handed to your Excellency on the 23rd of July, endeavored to convince the govern ment of the United States, and I trust with success, that the measures thae we have felt ourselves compelled to adopt, in consequence of the numerous acts committed by our enemies in vio-
 
 tateS of humanity, are consistent with the principles of international law. The legality of these measures has not yet formed the subject of a decision of the prize court; but wish to take this opportunity of reminding your Excel lency that, it is open to any United States citizen whose claim is before the prize court to contend that any or der in council which may affect his claim is inconsistent with the princt- pies of international law, and is, there fore, not binding upon the court. If the prize court declines to accept his contentious, and if, after such a de- cision has been upheld on appeal by the Judicial Committee cf his Majes- tvs Privy Council the government of the United States of America consider that there is serious ground for hold l ing that the decision is incorrect and innfringes the rights of their citizens, 1 it is open to them to claim that it should be subjected to review by an international tribunal.
 [. This principle that the decisions liof the national prize courts may prop lerly be subjected to international re- view, was conceded by Great Britain 1 in Article VII of the Jay treaty of l1793 and by the United States of America under the Treaty of Wash ington of 1871. Your Exceilency will no doubt remember that certain cases f l(co11ective1y known as the etAfatamoros Ecasesso were submitted to the com omission established under Articles lXII.-xVII of the Treaty of Washing ton In each of these cases proceed Iipgs in prize had been instituted in the prize courts of the United States, and in each case the Judgment of the Su- prerne Court, the court of last resort in cases of prizes, had been obtained. The United States filed a demurrer in these cases, alleging that, as they had !. I11 Limited States of original and appellate jurisdiction, the decision of the appel Hate court was final. and no claim tbased upon it could be made before Ithe comTnfssioIhn. The sdernurFe was anin1ous1y overruled and the cases Eheard. and the agent of the United IStates,.i his reports of the proceed fings of the commission, stated thatzhe, personally, maintained no doubt of the jurisdiction of the commission as an international tribunal to review the decisions of the prize courts of the Limited States where the parties aI- lleging themselves aggrieyed had pros- Iecuted their claims by appeals to the court of last resort; as this jurisdic- ton, however, had been some times that a formal adjudication by the leommission should be held upon this tquestion.
 8. The same principle was accept ed both by the United States Gov ernment and his Majesty's Govern nnent in 1907 in connection with the l;proposeds sestab1ishment of an interna- Itfonal- prize court. although certain q Unconstitutional difficulties have led the Limited States Government to propose that the right of recourse o the in- lternationaI prize court in connection with a decision. of the Supreme Court of the United States should take the form of a. direct claim for compen- sation.
 Reasonable Concessions.
 g. It is clear, therefore, that both the United States Government and his Majesty's Government have adopt ed the principle that the decisions of a 4 national prize court may be open to T review if it is held in the prize court
 and in the Judicial Committee o1 the Prfvy Council. on appeal. thai I the orders and instructions issued by his Majesty's Government in matters lre1ating to prize are in harmony with the principles Of international law and should the Government of the Limited States unfortunately feel com l pelled to maintain a contrary view his Maiesty's Governrnent will be pre- pared to concert with the United I States Government in order to decide upon the best way of applying the above principle to the situation whicf
 would then have arisen. I trust
 however, that the. defense of our ac- ton, which I have already comnunf- q cated to your Excellency, and the
 willingness of his Majesty's Govern Il ment, (which has been shown in SC
 many instances) to make reasonable
 concessions to American interests, will
 prevent the necessity for such action
 arising.
 10. In any case, trust that the ex-
 plantations given above will remove
 the nisapprehension under which
 can not but feel the Government oi
 the United States are 1aboring as tc
 the principles applied by British prize l1courts in dealing with the cases whicT come before them.
 I have, 6.c..