OCR Text |
Show KNOX WOULD EXTEND JURISDICTION OF INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT WASHINGTON. Jan. r.. With a view j n?Mi IntTmitlonal arbitration Judicial Judi-cial In fact as well as In theorv. Seerc-lar.v Seerc-lar.v Knox has addrc.yjjc,) a circular nofe to the powei-s propohlng thai .the Jurisdiction Juris-diction of the lnienuitional prise court, authorized in 1007. bv The Hague pe;nn conference, be eriejujcd so as to make 11 a court of arbitral justice. .This note was -dated October 1. RiOO. No ri'sponses Ir.tvx: been received. A statemciit explaining th' contents of the note and roanon. the proposal was made was given out tonight bv Secretary Knox. The international irlze court was lo be composed of fifteen judge;, elbt to h' ehoscii from the larger maritime countries. coun-tries. Germany, Austria -llunsarv, Franco Great Britain. Italy, Japan and the I r.ltod States, lo serve six years. Oilier judges were to be chosen from other nations na-tions and . were to sit for a. longer or shorter period as determined by the maritime mari-time standing of their respective countries. coun-tries. Statement of Knox. In his statement. Sccrciarv Knox- says: "The advantage of Investing the prize court with tho functions of a court of arbitral justice needs no argument, hi cause it Is obviously easier to utilize an exlsllng body than to create a new Institution, Insti-tution, and. as the judges of-the prize coiirl must necessarily be versed In International In-ternational law, tjiey could well be Intrusted In-trusted with any question susceptible Of arbitration. "The proposition has the very crcat advantage of providing the nations "with a. permanent court of ntbll ration for the je--acefnl settlement of eontfoverslcs In limes of pence; whereas the prize court, as such, pre-supposcs a state of war, for without war the capture of property Is illegal. "Clllizlng the method of composition of the prize court by thus Investing It with the jurisdiction and functions of a court of arbitral Justice would constitute fills latter a tribunal, and ihe world would thus have for the states freely consenting consent-ing lo and accepting the proposition, one International Judlcinrv to adjudge eases arising In peace as w'ell ns controversies springing from war. Tho court would thus be permanently constituted and would In reality be permanent; obviating the delay Involved In th- creation Of a temporary tribunal and developing International Inter-national law by a series of carefully considered con-sidered prereoents by judge carefully chosen and-aeflmr under a sense of Judicial Judi-cial responsibility "ArWtraMon would not merely be. ns both Hague conferences have said, the moot effadelous and most equitable method of i-etlllng disputes which diplomacy di-plomacy liis foiled to adjust.' but would be Judicial In fact as well as in theory." 'Makes Broad Proposal. Secretary Knojc proposed that nations confronted with constitutional objections in the matter of direct appeal from their national courts to the prize court might present. Instead of the Judgment of their national courts, the question Involved In the capture at issue; tba.t the proceeding? in such a .else should be In the nature of a re-trial de novo and that (ho Judgment Judg-ment of the international prize court should be limited to the uward of dam-agea dam-agea for Illegal capture. As constituted by The Hague conference confer-ence Ihe prize court was to be a. court, of appeals, either from the original national na-tional court In which the cane wsis tried or from the Judgment of ll appellate court. "The mijteri States has not submitted Judgment of Its court to International tribunals:'' explained Secretary Knox, "although It has frequently presenter! questions involved in Its courts to mixed commissions and hat promptly paid the awards when the. decision of the mixed commission has taxed the Cnlted States with liability not found by Its national court. Appeal from a. court of the United Unit-ed States might rjdfe a rlellcute and dlf-Ilcult. dlf-Ilcult. question of constitutional law ami render difficult. If not Impossible, the ratification of the prlr.c court by tho I'nltcd States. . "The difficulty Is one. of form rather than s'n,hstiuic6. for. whether the principle prin-ciple involved In the- judgment be. decided de-cided or the judgment of a national court be submitted, the result will he the same, namely, a decision upon the 1 ega Uty of the captour." |