312 WRIGHT— POWER TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES. 



such claims shall be pressed at all."* Even if an arbitration of such 

 claims results successfully for the United States the government 

 may withhold the money from the individual claimant if it discovers 

 fraud. Thus claimants in the L'/\bra and Wyle claims against 

 Mexico were unable to compel the Secretary of State by manda- 

 mus to turn over to them the money paid by Mexico to the United 

 States as a result of the arbitration." The United States govern- 

 ment had discovered fraud after the arbitration and ultimately 

 returned the money to Mexico. Where a general arbitration treaty 

 exists, the better authorities hold that the President may submit 

 claims falling within them on his own authority, unless the general 

 treaty requires otherwise. The Senate however has taken a dif- 

 ferent view."^ 



Arbitration awards are considered final and obligatory and have 

 practically always been met by the United States.'^'' In the few 

 cases where they have not, the United States has contended that 

 the arbitration court exceeded or abused its powers.'® Unless 

 such exception is taken at once by the political organs, the courts 

 "hold arbitration awards authorized by treaty the supreme law of the 

 land.^» 



Although often recommended, no international court of justice 

 was established until 1921. The International Prize Court to be set 

 up by the XII Hague Convention of 1907 never came into being. 

 Such a court, authorized by Article XIV of the League of Nations 

 Covenant, was established by action of the Second Assembly of the 

 League, September, 1921, on the basis of a code prepared by a com- 



74 J. B. Moore. Pol. Sci. Quar., 20: 403; Willoughby, op. cit., p. 475; 

 Moore, Digest, 5: 211. 



"sL'Abra Silver Mining Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 423 (1899) ; Foster, The 

 Practice of Diplomacy, 374-377- 



"<5 Willoughby, op. cit., p. 475, supra, sec. 62, infra, sec. 163. The Anglo- 

 American claims treaty of 1910, differing from those of 1853 and 1871, re- 

 quires that each schedule of claims under the treaty be approved by the 

 Senate as a special treaty (Charles, Treaties, p. 50, and Sir Cecil Hurst in 

 British Year Book of International Law, 2: 193). 



■^■^ I Hague Conventions, 1907, pp. 81-83. 



''^ Moore, Digest, 7 : 59-62. 



•79 Comegys v. Vasse, i Pet. 193, 212; La Ninfa, 75 Fed. 513 (1896); 

 Moore, Digest, 7: 55. 



