13. Nevertheless a fresh appeal has now been made to His Majesty's Government that shipments of American-owned goods of enemy's origin, if paid for before the beginning of March, should be allowed to be shipped without molestation after the 15th June. The appeal is based principally upon the contentions, (a) that insufficient time has already elapsed; (b) that no mention of a time limit is made in the enactment of the 11th March; (3) that the proofs of ownership required by His Majesty's Government are of an exacting nature and involve much time for preparation.

14. The first contention (a) has already been dealt with. As regards (b) and (c) it is true that the enactment of the 11th March contains no mention of a time limit. But it seems to be overlooked that the time limit has been fixed only for the special immunity granted as an exception from that enactment. It was as a friendly concession to American interests that His Majesty's Government agreed to an investigation of claims outside the prize court. As for the exacting nature of the proofs required by His Majesty's Government, experience has shown that such proofs were necessary.

15. In deference, however, to the renewed representations of the United States ambassador, His Majesty's Government have given further directions that in all such cases, as may have been specially submitted through the British Embassy at Washington or to His Majesty's Government direct on or before June 15 and passed, the goods shall be allowed to proceed without interference, if shipped from a neutral port on the conditions already laid down, notwithstanding the fact that shipment may not have been made before June 15.

16. His Majesty's Government will also be prepared hereafter to give special consideration to cases presented to them and involving particular hardships, if the goods concerned are required for neutral Governments or municipalities, or in respect of works or public utility, and where payment can be shown to have been made before March 1, 1915.

17. With the above exceptions, His Majesty's Government regret they can not continue to deal through the diplomatic channel with individual cases, but they would again point out that special provision is made for the consideration of such cases in the prize court. 18. Complaints have not infrequently been made that undue delay occurs in dealing with American cargoes in the prize court. An interesting comment on this subject was made by the president of the prize court in the case of the cargo ex-steamship Ogeechee on the 14th instant. His lordship, according to the transcript from the official shorthand writer's notes, made the following observations:

"It is a very extraordinary thing that, when the Crown are ready to go on the claimants come here and say, 'We can not proceed for six weeks.' Some day toward the end of the last term I had a row of eminent counsel in front pressing me to fix a case at once. I fixed it very nearly at once-that is to say, the second day of the following term. They all came and said, 'We want an adjournment for six weeks.'"

19. The solicitor general hereupon remarked: "If I might say so on that, one of the reasons I applied to-day on behalf of the Crown that the matter should be dealt with as soon as possible is for that very reason. There has been such a strong desire on the part of

America and American citizens that there should be no delay, but one finds, in fact, the delay comes from there."

20. The President then stated: "I know that. I do not know what the explanation is, but I am anxious that there should be no delay."

21. It is true that a number of cases, principally relating to cargoes which, though ostensibly consigned to a person in a neutral country, are in reality believed to be destined for the enemy, have been pending in the prize court for some time. The United States Government is aware that most of these cargoes consist of meat and lard, and that much of the delay in bringing these cargoes to adjudication was due to the fact that negotiations were being carried on for many weeks with a representative of the principal American meat packers for an amicable settlement out of court. When at length, owing to the failure of the negotiations, His Majesty's Government decided that they would continue the prize-court proceedings and had at the request of the claimants fixed the earliest possible date for the hearing, counsel for the latter asked for an adjournment in their interests, despite the fact that the Crown was, by his own admission, ready to proceed.

22. His Majesty's Government are earnestly desirous of removing all causes of avoidable delay in dealing with American cargoes and vessels which may be detained, and any specific inquiries or representations which may be made by the United States Government in regard to particular cases will always receive the most careful consideration, and all information which can be afforded without prejudice to prize-court proceedings will be readily communicated, but they can scarcely admit that on the basis of actual facts any substantial grievance on the part of American citizens is justified or can be sustained, and they therefore confidently appeal to the opinion of the United States Government as enlightened by this memorandum. (The New York Times, June 25, 1915.)

On July 14, 1915, our Government addressed a note declaring its intention to insist upon respect for international law in time of war: Summary of American "caveat," July 14, 1915, against British prize-court procedure.

(The Secretary of State to the American ambassador at London.)

In view of differences which are understood to exist between the two Governments as to the principles of law applicable in prize-court proceedings in cases involving American interests, and in order to avoid any misunderstanding as to the attitude of the United States in regard to such proceedings, you are instructed to inform the British Government that, in so far as the interests of American citizens are concerned, the Government of the United States will insist upon their rights under the principles and rules of international law as hitherto established, governing neutral trade in time of war, without limitation or impairment by orders in council or other municipal legislation by the British Government, and will not recognize the validity of prize-court proceedings taken under restraints imposed by British municipal law in derogation of the rights of American citizens under international law. (The New York Times, Aug. 4, 1915.)

The case of the seizure of the Neches called forth the following: Paraphrase of American note, July 15, 1915, protesting against the seizure of the cargo of the Neches.

(The Secretary of State to the American ambassador at London.)

Ambassador Page is informed that it has been brought to the attention of the department that the steamship Neches, of American register, sailing from Rotterdam for the United States, carrying a general cargo, after being detained at the Downs, was brought to London, where it was required by the British authorities to discharge cargo, the property of American citizens.

It appears that the ground advanced to sustain this action is that the goods originated, in part at least, in Belgium, and fall, therefore, within the provisions of paragraph 4 of the order in council of March 11, which stipulates that every merchant vessel sailing from a port other than a German port, carrying goods of enemy origin, may be required to discharge such goods in a British or allied port. Ambassador Page is instructed in this case to reiterate the position of the Government of the United States as set forth in the department's instruction of March 30, 1915, with respect to the order in council mentioned, the international invalidity of which the Government of the United States regards as plainly illustrated by the present instance of the seizure of American-owned goods passing from the neutral port of Rotterdam to a neutral port of the United States, merely because the goods came originally from territory in the possession of an enemy of Great Britain.

Mr. Page is also instructed to inform the foreign office that the legality of this seizure can not be admitted and that, in the view of the Government of the United States, it violates the right of the citizens of one neutral to trade with those of another, as well with those of belligerents, except in contraband or in violation of a legal blockade of an enemy seaport; and that the right of American owners of goods to bring them out of Holland in due course in neutral ships must be insisted upon by the United States, even though such goods may have come originally from the territories of enemies of Great Britain. He is directed further to insist upon the desire of this Government that goods taken from the Neches, which are the property of American citizens, should be expeditiously released to be forwarded to their destination, and to request that he be advised of the British Government's intended course in this matter at the earliest moment convenient to that Government. (The New York Times, Aug. 4, 1915.)

On July 31 the British Government replied to our protest against the seizure of the Neches:

[The New York Times, Aug. 4, 1915.]

(The secretary of state for foreign affairs to the American ambassador.)

The note which your excellency addressed to me on the 17th instant respecting the detention of the cargo of the steamship Neches has, I need hardly say, received the careful attention of His Majesty's Government.

The note which I had the honor to send to your excellency on the 23d instant has already explained the view of His Majesty's Government on the legal aspect of the question, though it was prepared before your excellency's communication of the 17th had been received, and, pending consideration by the Government of the United States of the views and arguments set forth in the British note of the 23d, it is unnecessary for me to say more on the question of right or of law.

There is, however, one general observation that seems relevant to the note from your excellency respecting the cargo of the Neches.

It is the practice of the German Government, in the waters through which the Neches was passing, to sink neutrals as well as British merchant vessels, irrespective of the destination of the vessel or origin of the cargo, and without proper regard or provision for the safety of passengers or crews, many of whom have lost their lives in consequence. There can be no question that this action is contrary to the recognized and settled rules of international law, as well as te the principles of humanity.

His Majesty's Government, on the other hand, have adhered to the rule of visit and search, and have observed the obligation to bring into port and submit to a prize court any ships or cargoes with regard to which they think they have a good case for detention or for condemnation as contraband.

His Majesty's Government are not aware, except from the published correspondence between the United States and Germany, to what extent reparation has been claimed from Germany by neutrals for loss of ships, lives, and cargoes, nor how far these acts have been the subject even of protest by the neutral Governments concerned.

While those acts of the German Government continue it seems neither reasonable nor just that His Majesty's Government should be pressed to abandon the rights claimed in the British note of the 23d and to allow goods from Germany to pass freely through waters effectively patrolled by British ships of war.

If, however, it be alleged that in particular cases and special circumstances hardships may be inflicted on citizens of neutral countries, His Majesty's Government are ready in such cases to examine the facts in a spirit of consideration for the interest of neutrals, and in this spirit they are prepared to deal with the cargo of the Neches, to which your excellency has called attention, if it is held that the particular circumstances of this case fall within this category.

I have, etc.,

E. GREY. On the last day of July the British made reply to the "caveat" of July 14:

[The New York Times, Aug. 5, 1915.]

(The secretary of state for foreign affairs to the American ambassador.) YOUR EXCELLENCY: (1) I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note dated 16th instant, in which you were good enough to communicate to me for the information of His Majesty's Government the opinion held by the Government of the United States that,

in view of differences which they understand to exist between the two countries as to the principles of law applicable in cases before the prize court, they could not recognize the validity of proceedings taken in His Majesty's prize court in derogation of the rights of citizens of the United States.

(2) I do not understand to what divergence of views as to the principles of law applicable in cases before the prize court the Government of the United States refers, for I am not aware of any differences existing between the two countries as to the principles of law applicable in cases before such courts.

(3) British prize courts, according to the ancient form of commission under which they sit, are to determine cases which come before them according to the course of admiralty and the law of nations and the statutes of rules and regulations for the time being in force in that behalf.

As to the principles applied by the American prize courts, I note that in the case of the Amy Warwick (2 Sprague, 123) it was held that prize courts are subject to the instructions of their own sovereign. In the absence of such instructions their jurisdiction and rules of decision are to be ascertained by reference to the known powers of such tribunals and the principles by which they are governed under the public law and the practice of nations. It would appear, therefore, that the principles applied by the prize courts of the two countries are identical.

(4) As illustrating further the attitude adopted by the judges of British prize courts toward these two sources of law, the municipal legislation of its sovereign on the one hand and the principles of international law on the other, I should like to refer your excellency to a classical passage in the judgment of Lord Stowell, in the case of the Fox, in which that famous judge observed in the course of the discussion:

"A question has been stated. What would be the duty of the court under orders in council that were repugnant to the law of nations? It has been contended on one side that the court would, at all events, be bound to enforce the orders in council, on the other that the court would be bound to apply the rule of the law of nations adapted to the particular case in disregard of the orders in council.

"This court is bound to administer the law of nations to the subjects of other countries in the different relations in which they may be placed toward this country and its Government. That is what others have a right to demand for their subjects and to complain if they receive it not. This is its unwritten law, evidenced in the course of its decisions and collected from the common usage of civilized States. At the same time it is strictly true that by the constitution of this country the King in council possesses legislative rights over this court and has power to issue orders and instructions which it is bound to obey and enforce; and these constitute the written law of this court.

"These two propositions, that the court is bound to administer the law of nations and that it is bound to enforce the King's orders in council, are not at all inconsistent with each other, because these orders and instructions are presumed to conform themselves, under the given circumstances, to the principles of its unwritten law. They