the prize courts of Great Britain, to which United States citizens are referred for redress.

(29) There is another ground why American citizens can not submit their wrongs arising out of undue detentions and seizures to British prize courts for reparation which I can not pass over unnoticed. It is the manner in which British courts obtain jurisdiction of such cases. The jurisdiction over merchant vessels on the high seas is that of the nation whose flag it rightfully flies. This is a principle of the law and practice of nations fundamental to the freedom of the high seas. Municipal enactments of a belligerent power can not confer jurisdiction over or establish rules of evidence governing the legality of seizures of vessels of neutral nationality on the high seas. International law alone controls the exercise of the belligerent right to seize and detain such vessels. Municipal laws and regulations in violation of the international rights of another nation can not be extended to the vessels of the latter on the high seas so as to justify a belligerent nation bringing them into its ports, and, having illegally brought them within its territorial jurisdiction, compelling them to submit to the domestic laws and regulations of that nation. Jurisdiction obtained in such a manner is contrary to those principles of justice and equity which all nations should respect. Such practice should invalidate any disposition by a municipal court of property thus brought before it. The Government of the United States has therefore viewed with surprise and concern the attempt of His Majesty's Government to confer upon the British prize courts jurisdiction by this illegal exercise of force in order that these courts may apply to vessels and cargoes of neutral nationalities, seized on the high seas, municipal laws and orders which can only rightfully be enforceable within the territorial waters of Great Britain or against vessels of British nationality when on the high

seas.

(30) In these circumstances the United States Government feels that it can not reasonably be expected to advise its citizens to seek redress before tribunals which are, in its opinion, unauthorized by the unrestricted application of international law to grant reparation, nor to refrain from presenting their claims directly to the British Government through diplomatic channels.

(31) This Government is advised that vessels and cargoes brought in for examination prior to prize proceedings are released only upon condition that costs and expenses incurred in the course of such unwarranted procedure, such as pilotage, wharfage, demurrage, harbor dues, warehouseage, unlading costs, etc., be paid by the claimants or on condition that they sign a waiver of right to bring subsequent claims against the British Government for these exactions. This Government is loath to believe that such ungenerous treatment will continue to be accorded American citizens by the Government of His Britannic Majesty; but in order that the position of the United States Government may be clearly understood, I take this opportunity to inform your excellency that this Government denies that the charges incident to such detentions are rightfully imposed upon innocent trade or that any waiver of indemnity exacted from American citizens under such conditions of duress can preclude them from

obtaining redress through diplomatic channels or by whatever other means may be open to them.

(32) Before closing this note, in which frequent reference is made to contraband traffic and contraband articles, it is necessary, in order to avoid possible misconstruction, that it should be clearly understood by His Majesty's Government that there is no intention in this discussion to commit the Government of the United States to a policy of waiving any objections which it may entertain as to the propriety and right of the British Government to include in their list of contraband of war certain articles which have been so included. The United States Government reserves the right to make this matter the subject of a communication to His Majesty's Government at a later day.

(33) I believe it has been conclusively shown that the methods sought to be employed by Great Britain to obtain and use evidence of enemy destination of cargoes bound for neutral ports and to impose a contraband character upon such cargoes are without justification; that the blockade, upon which such methods are partly founded, is ineffective, illegal, and indefensible; that the judicial procedure offered as a means of reparation for an international injury is inherently defective for the purpose; and that in many cases jurisdiction is asserted in violation of the law of nations. The United States, therefore, can not submit to the curtailment of its neutral rights by these measures, which are admittedly retaliatory, and therefore illegal, in conception and in nature, and intended to punish the enemies of Great Britain for alleged illegalities on their part. The United States might not be in a position to object to them if its interests and the interests of all neutrals were unaffected by them, but, being affected, it can not with complacence suffer further subordination of its rights and interests to the plea that the exceptional geographic position of the enemies of Great Britain require or justify oppressive and illegal practices.

(34) The Government of the United States desires, therefore, to impress most earnestly upon His Majesty's Government that it must insist that the relations between it and His Majesty's Government be governed, not by a policy of expediency but by those established rules of international conduct upon which Great Britain in the past has held the United States to account when the latter nation was a belligerent engaged in a struggle for national existence. It is of the highest importance to neutrals not only of the present day but of the future that the principles of international right be maintained unimpaired.

(35) This task of championing the integrity of neutral rights, which have received the sanction of the civilized world against the lawless conduct of belligerents arising out of the bitterness of the great conflict which is now wasting the countries of Europe, the United States unhesitatingly assumes, and to the accomplishment of that task it will devote its energies, exercising always that impartiality which from the outbreak of the war it has sought to exercise in its relations with the warring nations.

I inclose as supplements to this instruction the United States Navy order of August 18, 1862, and a statement regarding vessels detained by British authorities. These two documents should be transmitted as inclosures in your note to Sir Edward Grey.

I am, etc.,

ROBERT LANSING.

The reference in the note to our instructions to our naval authorities in the Civil War is that of August 18, 1862, which is as follows:

INSTRUCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO FLAG OFFICERS COMMANDING SQUADRONS AND OFFICERS COMMANDING CRUISERS RELATIVE TO THE RIGHT OF SEARCH.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, August 18, 1862.

SIR: Some recent occurrences in the capture of vessels, and matters pertaining to the blockade, render it necessary that there should be a recapitulation of the instruction heretofore from time to time given, and also of the restrictions and precautions to be observed by our squadrons and cruisers.

It is essential, in the remarkable contest now waging, that we should exercise great forbearance, with great firmness, and manifest to the world that it is the intention of our Government, while asserting and maintaining our own rights, to respect and scrupulously regard the rights of others. It is in this view that the following instructions are explicitly given:

First. That you will exercise constant vigilance to prevent supplies of arms, munitions, and contraband of war from being conveyed to the insurgents, but that under no circumstances will you seize any vessel within the waters of a friendly nation.

Second. That, while diligently exercising the right of visitation on all suspected vessels, you are in no case authorized to chase and fire at a foreign vessel without showing your colors and giving her the customary preliminary notice of a desire to speak and visit her.

Third. That when that visit is made, the vessel is not then to be seized without a search carefully made, so far as to render it reasonable to believe that she is engaged in carrying contraband of war for or to the insurgents, and to their ports directly or indirectly by transshipment, or otherwise violating the blockade; and that if, after visitation and search, it shall appear to your satisfaction that she is in good faith, and without contraband, actually bound and passing from one friendly or so-called neutral port to another and not bound or proceeding to or from a port in the possession of the insurgents, then she can not be lawfully seized.

Fourth. That, to avoid difficulty and error in relation to papers which strictly belong to the captured vessel and mails that are carried or parcels under official seals, you will, in the words of the law, preserve all the papers and writings found on board and transmit the whole of the originals unmutilated to the judge of the district to which such prize is ordered to proceed "; but official seals, or locks, or fastenings of foreign authorities are in no case, nor on any pretext, to be broken or parcels covered by them read by any naval authorities, but all bags or other things covering such parcels and duly sealed and fastened by foreign authorities will be, in the discretion of the United States officer to whom they may come delivered to the consul, commanding naval officer, or legation of the foreign. Government, to be opened, upon the understanding that whatever is contraband or important as evidence concerning the character of a captured vessel will be remitted to the prize court or to the Secretary of State at Washington, or such sealed bag or parcels may be at

forwarded to this department, to the end that the proper authorities of the foreign Government may receive the same without delay.

You are specially informed that the fact that a suspicious vessel has been indicated to you as cruising in any limit which has been prescribed by this department does not in any way authorize you to depart from the practice of the rules of visitation, search, and capture prescribed by the law of nations.

Very respectfully,

GIDEON WELLES, Secretary of the Navy.

The famous Zamora case referred to in the October 21 note, which virtually declared orders in council in contravention of international law as invalid and which virtually conceded our position as held from the beginning, is printed in the April number of the American Journal of International Law, and is too long to insert here. All students of this controversy should study that decision.

October 28, just seven days after our famous note, the British Government announced another order in council, known as the "Declaration of London Order in Council."

AMBASSADOR W. H. PAGE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

[Telegram.]

AMERICAN EMBASSY, London, October 28, 1915.

Following is text of order in council, dated October 20, 1915: "Whereas by the Declaration of London Order in Council No. 2, 1914. His Majesty was pleased to declare that during the present hostilities the provisions of the said Declaration of London should, subject to certain exceptions and modifications therein specified, be adopted and put in force by His Majesty's Government; and

"Whereas by article 57 of the said declaration it is provided that the neutral or enemy character of a vessel is determined by the flag which she is entitled to fly; and

"Whereas it is no longer expedient to adopt the said article:

"Now, therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice of his privy council, is pleased to order, and it is hereby ordered, that from and after this date article 57 of the Declaration of London shall cease to be adopted and put in force.

"In lieu of the said article, British prize courts shall apply the rules and principles formerly observed in such courts.

"This order may be cited as 'The Declaration of London Order in Council, 1915.'

"And the lords commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, the lords commissioners of the Admiralty, and each of His Majesty's principal secretaries of state, the president of the probate, divorce, and admiralty division of the high court of justice, all other judges of His Majesty's prize courts, and all governors, officers, and authorities whom it may concern, are to give the necessary directions herein as to them may respectively appertain."

PAGE.

Further requisition orders were issued on November 9, 1915, touching the carriage of foodstuffs:

[Inclosure.]

[Extract from the second supplement to the London Gazette of Tuesday, Nov. 9, 1915.]

REQUISITION OF SHIPS (CARRIAGE OF FOODSTUFFS)-ORDER IN COUNCIL,

1915.

At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 10th day of November, 1915.

Present: The King's most excellent majesty in council.

Whereas a state of war exists between His Majesty and the German Emperor, the Emperor of Austria King of Hungary, the Sultan of Turkey, and the King of the Bulgarians;

And whereas His Majesty holds it to be his prerogative duty as well as his prerogative right to take all steps necessary for the defense and protection of the realm;

And whereas it has been made to appear to His Majesty that it is essential to the defense and protection of the realm that all British ships registered in the United Kingdom should be made liable to requisition in manner hereinafter appearing for the carriage of foodstuffs and of any other article of commerce;

Now, therefore, His Majesty is pleased, by and with the advice of his privy council, and in exercise of his prerogatives as aforesaid and of all other powers him thereunto enabling, to order, and it is hereby ordered, that any British ship registered in the United Kingdom may until further order be requisitioned by and on behalf of His Majesty for the carriage of foodstuffs and of any other articles of commerce, and such requisition is to take effect upon notice of requisition being served as hereinafter provided on the owner of any such ship;

And His Majesty is further pleased, by and with the advice aforesaid, to authorize and direct the president of the board of trade to give effect to this order by causing notice of requisition to be served on the owner of any such ship;

And His Majesty is further pleased, by and with the advice aforesaid, to declare that service of notice of requisition on an owner shall be deemed sufficient and effective if served in the case of an individual owner by being addressed to such individual owner and left at his last-known place of business or abode, and in the case of joint owners by being addressed to such joint owners and left at the lastknown business addresses or places of abode of such joint owners, and in the case of a company or corporation by being addressed to such company or corporation and left at the registered or other address of such company or corporation, or in any of the aforesaid cases by being addressed to the managing owner, ship's husband, or other the person to whom the management of the ship is by law intrusted by or on behalf of the owners, and left at the registered or other lastknown address or place of abode of such managing owner, ship's husband, or other such person, as the case may be.

And His Majesty is further pleased, by and with the advice aforesaid, to declare that any notice of requisition which the president of