RELATIONS OF INDEPENDENT DEPARTMENTS. 425 



" Moreover, inasmuch as the Appam has been Hbeled 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 en- 

 tirely 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." 



On this statement two comments may be made. Unquesionably, 

 the President, through the Secretary of State, had power to settle the 

 controversy with Germany by arbitration or otherwise, irrespective 

 of the results of the District Court's decision. The fact that the 

 United States could not vouch for a continuance of the status quo 

 of the vessel was no reason for refusing to arbitrate the interna- 

 tional issue. In the second place, even if constitutional difficulties 

 did prevent the President meeting responsibilities under interna- 

 tional law, such difficulties would not be a valid defense against 

 claims by foreign nations. Foreign nations are entitled to expect 

 satisfaction of their claims through the President, according to the 

 measure of international law alone. However, the case illustrates 

 the operation of the constitutional understanding whereby the Pres- 

 ident refuses to consider controversies already in process of con- 

 sideration by the courts. 



Conversely, the courts ordinarily refuse to pass on controversies 

 in process of diplomatic settlement. Thus, in the case of Cooper, 

 the Supreme Court was asked to issue a writ of prohibition to 

 restrain the United States District Court of Alaska from enforcing 

 a sentence of forfeiture of a British vessel alleged illegally to have 

 taken seal in American jurisdictional waters fifty-seven miles from 

 shore. Discussion was going on between Great Britain and the 

 Department of State as to whether this point was in American juris- 

 diction and the court expressed the opinion that the President had 

 power to settle the controversy. 



" If this be so, the application calls upon the court, while negotiations are 

 pending, to decide whether the Government is right or wrong, and to review 

 the action of the political departments upon the question contrary to the 

 settled law in that regard." 



