The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-08-04

1.-TWO proportions tnat the court - pouhu
to administer the law OF nations. and
that II IL bound to enforce the Kings
orders in council. are not at all in
consistent with each other because
these orders and instructions are pre-
sumed to conform thems ,lyes Under the
given circumstances to the principles
of It's unwritten law. They are either
directory applications of those prinei-
\ pies to the cases indicated In them
cases which with all the facts and eir-
cumstances belonging to them. AID
could be but imperfectly known TO the
which constitute their legal character
court itseif--or they are positive resu-
lations, consistent with these princt-
| PIES applying to matters which require
most exact and definite rules than those
| general principles are capable Of fur
nishinE. The constitution of this court.
relatively to the Legislative power OF
the King in council. Is analogous TO
that of the courts Of common law reia-
lively 10 that of the Parliament of this
Kingdom. These courts have their un-
written law, he approved reasons, prin-
ciples OF natural reason and justice;
they have likewise the written or stat
ute law in acts of Parliament which
are directory applications OF the sam.
| principles to particular subjects, or
positive regulations consistent with
|
main too much at large IL they were
| left to the imperfect information which
the courts could extract from mere gem
eral speculations. What would be the
duty of the individuals who preside
| In the courts II required to enforce
an act of Parliament which contra
dicted the principles Ia a question
! which. / presume. they would not en-
terrain a priori, because they will MT
2 II nj ~
| any such will arise. In like manner
! this court will not let itself loose into
| speculations as to what would be Its
duty under such an emergency. because
! II cannot without extreme indecency
presume that any such emergency VIII
happen. And 1t is the less disposed
! to entertain them because Its own OBJ
| servation and experience attest the
general conformity of such orders and
| instructions to It's principles of un-
written law
TIE geamora Case.
! "5. The above passage has recently
been quoted and adopted by the pres
| tdent of the prize court In the case
| Of the Seamore, In which Sir Sevans
said: I 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 acknowledge laws
| of nations That 1t Is conceivable that
our prize tribunal. holding the law
| of nations In reverence, would feel
called upon to disregard and refuse
| obedience TO the provisions OF such
orders
rs. In the note which I handed TO
Your Excellency on the 23rd of July,
I endeavored to convince the govern
ment OF the United States and / trust
| with success, that the measures that
| we have felt ourselves compelled to
adopt in consequence of the numer-
| GUS acts committed by our enemies
In violation of the laws of war, and
the dictates of humanity consistent
with the principles of international
law. The legality of these measures
has not yet been forced the subject
Of a decision of the prize court. but
wish to take this opportunity of re-
minding Your Excellency that 1t Is
| open to any United States citizen
whose claim is before the prize court
| to contend that any order in council
which may effect his claim Is incon-
sistent with the principles of inter-
national law, and Is, therefore, not
| binding upon the court. If the prize
court declines to accept his conten-
lions, and in after such decision
has been upheld on appeal by the
judicial committee OF His Majesty 3
privy council. the Government of the
| United States of American consider
that there is serious ground for hold
| ing that the decision is incorrect and
| infringes the rights OF their cfti-
gems. II is open to them to claim that
lit should be subjected to review by
an international tribunal.
~. The principle that the decisions
| of the national prize courts may prop
erly be subjected to international re-
view was conceded by Great Britain
| In article of the Jay treaty of 1923,
and by the United States of America
under the treaty Of Washington, 1874
Your Excellency will no doubt re-
member that certain cases collective
/ " known as the Matamore cases)
were submitted to the committee es-
tablished under articles 1917 of the
treaty OF Washington. In each of
these cases proceedings In prize had
been instituted In the prize courts of
the United States. and in each case
the judgment of the Supreme Court.