are either directory applications of those principles to the cases indicated in them-cases which, with all the facts and circumstances belonging to them and which constitute their legal character, could be but imperfectly known to the court itself; or they are positive regulations, consistent with these principles, applying to matters which require more exact and definite rules than those general principles are capable of furnishing.

"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 relatively to that of the Parliament of this Kingdom. These courts have their unwritten law, the approved reasons, principles of natural reason and justice; they have likewise the written or statute law in acts of Parliament, which are directory applications of the same principles to particular subjects or positive regulations consistent with them upon matters which would remain too much at large if they were left to the imperfect information which the courts could extract from mere general speculations.

"What would be the duty of the individuals who preside in these courts if required to enforce an act of Parliament which contradicted those principles is a question which, I presume, they would not entertain a priori because they will not entertain a priori the supposition that 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 it can not, without extreme indecency, presume that any such emergency will happen. And it is the less disposed to entertain them because its own observation and experience attest the general conformity of such orders and instructions to its principles of unwritten law."

(5) The above passage has recently been quoted and adopted by the president of the prize court in the case of the Zamora, in which Sir S. Evans 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 the acknowledged laws of nations that it is conceivable that our prize tribunals, holding the law of nations in reverence, would be called upon to disregard and refuse obedience to the provisions of such orders."

(6) In the note which I handed to your excellency on the 23d of July, I endeavored to convince the Government of the United States, and I trust with success, that the measures that we have felt ourselves compelled to adopt, in consequence of the numerous acts committed by our enemies in violation of the laws of war and the dictates 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 I wish to take this opportunity of reminding your excellency that it is 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, therefore, not binding upon the court. If the prize court declines to accept his contentions, and if, after such a decision has been upheld on appeal by the judicial committee of His Majesty's privy council the Government of the United States of America consider that there is serious ground for holding that

the decision is incorrect and infringes the rights of their citizens, it is open to them to claim that it should be subjected to review by an international tribunal.

(7) This principle, that the decisions of the national prize courts may properly be subjected to international review, was conceded by Great Britain in article 7 of the Jay treaty of 1793 and by the United States of America under the treaty of Washington of 1871. Your excellency will no doubt remember that certain cases (collectively known as the "Matamoros cases") were submitted to the commission established under articles 12-17 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, 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 been heard by the prize courts of the United States of original and appellate jurisdiction, the decision of the appellate court was final, and no claim based upon it could be made before the commission. The demurrer was unanimously overruled and the cases heard, and the agent of the United States, in his reports of the proceedings of the commission, stated that he, personally, maintained no doubt of the jurisdiction of the commission as an international tribunal to review the decisions of the prize courts of the United States where the parties alleging themselves aggrieved had prosecuted their claims by appeals to the court of last resort; as this jurisdiction, however, had been sometimes questioned, he deemed it desirable that a formal adjudication by the commission should be held upon this question.

(8) The same principle was accepted both by the United States Government and His Majesty's Government in 1907 in connection with the proposed establishment of an international prize court, although certain constitutional difficulties have led the United States Government to propose that the right of recourse to the international prize court in connection with a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States should take the form of a direct claim for compensation.

(9) It is clear, therefore, that both the United States Government and His Majesty's Government have adopted the principle that the decisions of a national prize court may be open to review if it is held in the prize court and in the judicial committee of the privy council, on appeal, that the orders and instructions issued by His Majesty's Government in matters relating to prize are in harmony with the principles of international law; and, should the Government of the United States unfortunately feel compelled to maintain a contrary view. His Majesty's Government will be prepared to concert with the United States Government in order to decide upon the best way of applying the above principle to the situation which would then have arisen. I trust, however, that the defense of our action, which I have already communicated to your excellency, and the willingness of His Majesty's Government (which has been shown in so mnay instances) to make reasonable. concessions to American interests, will prevent the necessity for such action arising.

(10) In any case I trust that the explanations given above will remove the misapprehension under which I can not but feel the

Government of the United States are laboring as to the principles applied by British prize courts in dealing with the cases which come before them.

I have, etc.,

E. GREY.

On the 18th of August England, after frequent declarations against declaring cotton contraband, included it in the list by the following proclamation:

[The New York Times, Aug. 18, 1915.]

British proclamation, August 21, 1915, declaring cotton contraband of war:

Now, therefore, we do hereby declare, by and with the advice of our privy council, that during the continuance of the war, or until we do give further public notice, the following articles will be treated as absolutely contraband, in addition to those set out in our royal proclamation aforementioned: Raw cotton, cotton linters, cotton waste, and cotton yarn.

And we do hereby further declare that this our royal proclamation shall take effect from the date of its publication in the London Gazette. (The New York Times, Aug. 22, 1915.)

The following communication was to clear up an alleged misunderstanding over the Neches:

NOTE VERBALE FROM THE BRITISH EMBASSY.

BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, August 6, 1915. Comments have reached His Majesty's Government from various quarters that a misapprehension seems to have arisen with regard to the British note of July 31 concerning the steamer Neches, which it was asserted had been interpreted as stating that the cargo of the vessel had been seized as a reprisal measure against Germany's submarine policy.

Sir Edward Grey has requested me to explain that the misunderstanding arises no doubt from the brevity of the note. The note admits no illegality of procedure. The seizure was not meant in the nature of a reprisal but was based solely on the British contention of the absolute legality of the Orders in Council as explained in the note of July 23, to which the Neches note refers.

It is also explained that in stating that the British Government does not yet know what steps neutrals have taken against German submarine policy, no reference was intended to the action of the United States Government but to other neutrals, who have lost more ships than the United States but of whose action nothing is known by the British Government.

It should be further explained that in making reference to the German submarine policy the British Government only desired to point out that from its standpoint it was hardly just or reasonable that it should be asked by neutrals to abandon any of its legal rights while Germany commits illegalities both on Great Britain and on 84610°-H. Doc. 2111, 64-2, pt 2—10

neutrals, though it is admitted and regretted that interference with German trade however legal may be inconvenient to neutrals.

One of the chief claims of the British right to blockade neutral ports was the increased exportation as proof of reexport to Germany. The following communication is pertinent:

[Memorandum.]

AMERICAN EMBASSY,
London, June 3, 1915.

The American ambassador presents his compliments to His Majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs and has the honor to acquaint him that he is in receipt of a communication from the consul general in London, in which he requests that he may be informed regarding the amount of raw cocoa and preparations of cocoa exported from Great Britain to Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Italy during the four months ending April 30, 1915, as compared with the same period of 1914 and 1913. Mr. Page ventures to hope that should no inconvenience be found in so doing, Sir Edward Grey may be so good as to cause him to be furnished with the desired information in this connection.

THE BRITISH SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO AMBASSADOR PAGE.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 13, 1915.

YOUR EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to refer to the memorandum which you were good enough to communicate on the 3d June last, in which you informed me of the desire of the United States consul general in London to be furnished with figures showing the amount of raw cocoa and preparations of cocoa exported from Great Britain to Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Italy during the four months ending April 30, 1915, as compared with the same period in 1914 and 1913. Your excellency will remember that I had the honor to communicate to you tabular statement of these figures on the 16th ultimo.

His Majesty's ambassador at Washington reported on the 22d July that the acting counselor of the State Department had referred in conversation to the unfavorable impression created at Washington by reports as to the increase in British exports to northern European neutral ports since the outbreak of war received from Mr. Consul General Skinner, these reports having given figures showing increases in the British exports of some commodities to those countries. I am therefore communicating to Sir C. Spring-Rice statistics showing what the exports of the United Kingdom were in comparison with those of the United States during the first five months of this year, in order that this impression may be removed as soon as possible; but as I hear that statements, no doubt inspired by German agents, are being circulated in America to the effect that His Majesty's Government are trying to stop the legitimate trade of the United States with neutral countries in order to capture the trade for the British Empire, and are therefore allowing goods to be exported from the United Kingdom which they have not allowed to be imported into the same countries from the United States, I think

it well to inform your excellency immediately of the true state of the case, and with this view to invite attention to the following data and figures:

The increased reexport of cotton from the United Kingdom to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands during the months of January to May, 1915, as compared with the same period in 1914, amounted to 503,995 centals of 100 pounds. The United States exported to the four countries mentioned during this period in 1915 as much as 3,353,638 centals, as compared with 204,177 centals during January to May, 1914, an increase of 3,149,461 centals, or six times the increase in the export of cotton from the United Kingdom.

The above figures for the United Kingdom are taken from the official customs returns; those for the United States have been carefully compiled by the war trade department from the manifests of those vessels which actually arrived with cargo from the United States in Scandinavian and Dutch ports during the five months. February to June, 1915, as compared with five-twelfths of the total recorded exports from the United States to those countries in the year ended June 30, 1914. It has been necessary to adopt this method, as the Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce, issued by the United States Government, gives very few details with regard to American trade with those countries. It is evident that some shipments must have taken place from the United States to Scandinavia and the Netherlands which could not come within the scope of even the most circumstantial compilation of statistics drawn up from the manifests of examined ships alone, and I would therefore lay particular stress on the fact that the figures thus obtained by the war trade department are necessarily understatements of the total amounts actually shipped. But even from the figures thus obtained it is possible to show conclusively how much greater the increases in the American exports to Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have been than those of Great Britain during the first five months of this year, not only in the case of cotton but in that of almost every other important commodity.

Reexports of rubber from the United Kingdom to Scandinavia and the Netherlands declined from 17,727 centals of 100 pounds in January-May, 1914, to 16,693 centals in January-May, 1915; on the other hand, exports of rubber from the United States to the same destinations increased from 1,579 centals to 5,040 centals. Larger reexports of rubber to the United States from this country have indeed taken place, but all other reexports of rubber have declined during this period, as the following figures show: