Ambassador Leishman to the Secretary of State.

No. 212.]

Sir: Referring to the department’s unnumbered instruction of November 3, 1909, and to the embassy’s dispatch No. 136 of January 17, 1910, in regard to the alternative procedure for the international prize court and the investment of this tribunal with the functions of a court of arbitral justice, I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a note from the royal ministry of foreign affairs, together with a translation thereof.

I have, etc.,

John G. A. Leishman.
[Page 619]
[Inclosure—Translation.]

The Minister for Foreign Affairs to Ambassador Leishman.

Mr. Ambassador: On January 15 last my predecessor had the honor to declare to your excellency that the King’s Government had received favorably, in the main, the two proposals formulated by the American Government in its circular of October 18, 1909 (attached to the embassy’s note of November 24), in regard to the international prize court and the court of arbitral justice, reserving to itself, however, the right to state in a later reply their own understanding in regard to them.

In confirming these declarations, I have the honor, however, to complete them with the following information:

1.
In regard to the first proposal, which concerns the manner of placing before the international prize court the questions which, according to the terms of the convention of 1907, should be carried up to it in the form of recourse from the sentences of the national judicial authorities, the King’s Government has no substantial objections against the desire expressed by the American Government. The considerations proposed in the above-mentioned circular amply justify, in our opinion, the proposals formulated by it, without substantially impairing the efficacy of the agreement and the authority of the new jurisdiction which is to be instituted; they will serve to agree better with the laws in force in the single States, and, eliminating the difficulties which might prevent, on this proposal, the participation of some of them in the new institution, they will insure—as is the desire and wish of all—the full practical operation of the work of the second conference of The Hague in what constitutes the, perhaps, most notable result of its labors. The Government of the King was anxious to examine accurately to see if it would not be well to introduce some slight modification in the formulas suggested in the circular of October 18, 1909, for the full safeguarding of the rights and of the terms established in the convention of 1907, as, as a matter of fact, is declared in the final clause of the formulas referred to. It occurring to me, however, that new clauses and new suggestions might perhaps be added in accordance between the American Government and that of other countries, to the Governments of the States which subscribed to the conventions of The Hague, in regard to the manner most opportune of the proposal in question, I reserve the right to express in due time, also in regard to this proposition, the point of view of the King’s Government.
2.
In regard to the second proposal, which concerns the competency of the international prize court to act as a court of arbitral justice in whatever controversy which the contracting States should bring before it, according to the project of the convention which the second peace conference compiled and recommended for the institution of the latter, the King’s Government would not have, in as far as it is concerned, motive to reject the proposals of the American Government. Mindful, however, of the difficulties with which the institution in question met on the part of not a few of the States which participated in the conference—difficulties which might to-day prevent the constitution of the same prize court or perhaps hinder the adhesion of the said States to the same if the ratification of the convention in question were subordinated or in any manner joined to the new agreements and to the declaration suggested in the circular of October 18—I should consider it more opportune that all further concrete negotiations on this subject should be postponed until the ratification of the convention relative to the prize court shall have taken place within the time agreed upon, which is now about to expire.

This, however, does not prevent an exchange of ideas from being useful in the meantime also in this respect between the States which received with the greatest interest the plan for the institution of both the courts.

A. Di San Giuliano.