126 WRIGHT— POSITION OF FOREIGN RELATIONS 



unresponsive to suggestions for a discussion of international claims 



with the state governments within the United States. ^° They have 



United States port, the German government said : "The opinion of the De- 

 partment of State that the American cpurts must decide about the claims 

 of the British Shipping Company is incompatible with the treaty stipulations. 

 It is, therefore, respectfully requested that the legal steps before an American 

 court should be suspended." The American answer of April 7, 1916, " holding 

 the view that Article 19 is not applicable to the case of the Appam, this 

 Government does not consider it necessary to discuss the contention of the 

 Imperial Government that under Article 19 American courts are without 

 jurisdiction to interfere with the prize," appears satisfactor\-. It is, there- 

 fore, unfortunate that the note added the following inadmissible argument. 

 " Moreover, inasmuch as the Appam has been libeled in the United States 

 District Court by the alleged owners, this Government, under the American 

 system of government, in which the judicial and executive branches are 

 entirely separate and independent, could not vouch for a continuance of the 

 status quo of the prize during the progress of the arbitration proposed by the 

 Imperial Government. The United States Court, having taken jurisdiction 

 of the vessel, that jurisdiction can only be dissolved by judicial proceedings 

 leading to a decision of the court discharging the case — a procedure which 

 the executive cannot summarily terminate." However correct this may be 

 from the standpoint of constitutional law it could not justify a failure to 

 meet international responsibilities. (Supra, note 13. White Book, European 

 War, No. 3, pp. 340, 343.) 



The United States has been similarly reluctant to leave important 

 matters of international law to foreign courts. In a note of June 24, 1915, 

 with reference to indemnity for destruction of the United States vessel Wil- 

 liam P. Frye, by Germany, Secretary Lansing wrote, " The Government 

 of the United States, therefore, suggests that the Imperial German Govern- 

 ment reconsider the subject in the light of these considerations, and because 

 of the objections against resorting to the Prize Court the government of 

 the United States renews its former suggestion that an efifort be made to 

 settle this claim by direct diplomatic negotiations." (Op. cit.. No. 2, p. 187; 

 see also note of April 28, 1915, op. cit., No. i, p. 88.) 



30 See Louisiana Lynching Cases, U. S. For. Rel., 1891, pp. (^S-(>^7, 

 6-1-672, 674-686, 712-713, Ibid., 1901, p. 253; Moore, Digest, 6: 837. "We 

 should not be obliged to refer those who complain of a breach of such 

 an obligation to governors of states and county prosecutors to take up the 

 procedure of vindicating the rights of aliens which have been violated on 

 American soil." (Taft, Proc. Am. Soc. of Int. Lazv, 4: 44.) The United 

 States has taken a similar attitude as to claims against foreign states. 

 " This government cannot with propriety apply to the authorities of Yucatan 

 for redress, that province constituting only a part of the Republic of 

 Mexico, which is responsible in the last resort for all injuries which the 

 judicial tribunals may have neglected or may have been incompetent to 

 redress." (Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State to Mr. Holmes, Nov. 20, 1844, 

 Moore, Digest, 4: 682.) 



