contentions, and if, after such a decision has been upheld on appeal by the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council, the Government of the United States of America consider that there is serious ground for holding that the decision is incorrect and infringes the rights of their citizens, it is open to them to claim that it should be subjected to review by an international tribunal. 7. This principle, that the decisions of the national Prize Courts may properly be subjected to international review, was conceded by Great Britain in article 7 of the Jay Treaty of 1794,* and by the United States of America under the Treaty of Washington of 1871.† Your Excellency will no doubt remember that certain cases (collectively known as the "Matamoros cases") were submitted to the Commission established under articles 12-17 of the Treaty of Washington. In each of these cases proceedings in prize had been instituted in the Prize Courts of the United States, and in each case the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Court of last resort in cases of prize, had been obtained. The United States filed a demurrer in these cases, alleging that, as they had been heard by the Prize Courts of the United States of original and appellate jurisdiction, the decision of the Appellate Court was final, and no claim based upon it could be made before the Commission. The demurrer was unanimously overruled and the cases heard, and the agent of the United States, in his report upon the proceedings of the Commission, stated that he personally "maintained no doubt of the jurisdiction of the Commission as an international tribunal, to review the decisions of the Prize Courts of the United States, where the parties alleging themselves aggrieved had prosecuted their claims by appeal to the Court of last resort. As this jurisdiction, however, had been sometimes questioned, he deemed it desirable that a formal adjudication by the Commission should be had upon this question." 8. The same principle was accepted both by the United States Government and His Majesty's Government in 1907, in connection with the proposed establishment of an International Prize Court, although certain constitutional difficulties have led the United States Government to propose that the right of recourse to the International Prize Court in connection with a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States should take the form of a direct claim for compensation. 9. It is clear, therefore, that both the United States Government and His Majesty's Government have adopted the principle that the decisions of a national Prize Court may be open to review. If it is held in the Prize Court and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on appeal, that the orders and instructions issued by His Majesty's Government in matters relating to prize are in harmony with the principles of inter+ Vol. LXI, page 40. • Vol. I, page 754. national law, and should the Government of the United States unfortunately feel compelled to maintain a contrary view, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to concert with the United States Government in order to decide upon the best way of applying the above principle to the situation, which would then have arisen. I trust, however, that the defence of our action which I have already communicated to your Excellency, and the willingness of His Majesty's Government (which has been shown in so many instances) to make reasonable concessions to American interests, will prevent the necessity for such action arising. 10. In any case, I trust that the explanations given above will remove the misapprehension, under which I cannot but feel the Government of the United States are labouring, as to the principles applied by British Prize Courts in dealing with the cases which come before them. I have, &c. E. GREY. Note verbale communicated by His Majesty's Ambassador at COMMENTS have reached His Majesty's Government from various quarters that a misapprehension seems to have arisen with regard to the British note of the 30th July concerning the steamer Neches, which, it was asserted, had been interpreted as stating that the cargo of the vessel had been seized as a reprisal measure against Germany's submarine policy. Sir Edward Grey has requested me to explain that the misunderstanding arises no doubt from the brevity of the note. The note does not admit any illegality. The seizure was not meant in the nature of a reprisal, but was based solely on the British contention of the absolute legality of the Orders in Council as explained in the note of the 23rd July to which the Neches note refers. It is also explained that in stating that the British Government does not yet know what steps neutrals have taken against German submarine policy, no reference was intended to the action of the United States Government, but to other neutrals who have lost more ships than the United States, but of whose action nothing is known by the British Government. It should be further explained that in making reference to the German submarine policy the British Government only desired to point out that from its standpoint it was hardly just or reasonable that it should be asked by neutrals to abandon any of its legal rights while Germany commits illegalities both on Great Britain and on neutrals, though it is admitted and regretted that interference with German trade, however legal, may be inconvenient to neutrals. Washington, August 6, 1915. Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Page. Your Excellency, Foreign Office, August 13, 1915. I HAVE the honour to refer to the memorandum which you were good enough to communicate on the 3rd June last, in which you informed me of the desire of the United States consul-general in London to be furnished with figures showing the amount of raw cocoa and preparations of cocoa exported from Great Britain to Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Italy during the four months ending the 30th April, 1915, as compared with the same period in 1914 and 1913. Your Excellency will remember that I had the honour to com municate to you tabular statements of these figures on the 16th ultimo. His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington reported on the 22nd July that the Acting Counsellor at the State Department had referred in conversation to the unfavourable impression created at Washington by reports as to the increase in British exports to Northern European neutral ports since the outbreak of war received from Mr. Consul-General Skinner, these reports having given figures showing increases in the British exports of some commodities to those countries. I am therefore communicating to Sir C. Spring-Rice statistics showing what the exports of the United Kingdom were in comparison with those of the United States during the first five months of this year in order that this impression may be removed at soon as possible; but as I hear that statements, no doubt inspired by German agents, are being circulated in America to the effect that His Majesty's Government are trying to stop the legitimate trade of the United States with neutral countries in order to capture the trade for the British Empire, and are therefore allowing goods to be exported from the United Kingdom which they have not allowed to be imported into the same countries from the United States, I think it well to inform your Excellency immediately of the true state of the case, and with this view to invite attention to the following data and figures: The increased re-export of cotton from the United Kingdom to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands during the months of January to May 1915, as compared with the same period in 1914, amounted to 503,995 centals of 100 lb. The United States exported to the four countries mentioned during this period in 1915 as much as 3,353,638 centals, as compared with 204,177 centals during January to May 1914, an increase of 3,149,461 centals, or six times the increase in the export of cotton from the United Kingdom. The above figures for the United Kingdom are taken from the official Customs returns; those for the United States have been carefully compiled by the War Trade Department from the manifests of those vessels which actually arrived with cargo from the United States in Scandinavian and Dutch ports during the five months February to June 1915, as compared with fivetwelfths of the total recorded exports from the United States to those countries in the year ended the 30th June, 1914. It has been necessary to adopt this method, as the "Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce," issued by the United States Government, gives very few details with regard to American trade with those countries. It is evident that some shipments must have taken place from the United States to Scandinavia and the Netherlands which could not come within the scope of even the most circumstantial compilation of statistics drawn up from the manifests of examined ships alone, and I would therefore lay particular stress on the fact that the figures thus obtained by the War Trade Department are necessarily under-statements of the total amounts actually shipped. But even from the figures thus obtained it is possible to show conclusively how much greater the increases in the American exports to Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have been than those of Great Britain during the first five months of this year, not only in the case of cotton, but in that of almost every other important commodity. Re-exports of rubber from the United Kingdom to Scandinavia and the Netherlands declined from 17,727 centals of 100 lb. in January-May 1914 to 16,693 centals in January-May 1915; on the other hand, exports of rubber from the United States to the same destinations increased from 1,579 centals to 5,040 centals. Larger re-exports of rubber to the United States from this country have indeed taken place, but all other re-exports of rubber have declined during this period, as the following figures show : It will therefore be seen that this country has actually been supplying more rubber to the United States at the expense of other neutrals, while American expoeters have taken advantage of this to ship increased quantities of rubber to Scandinavia and the Netherlands. In the case of lubricating oils, the increase of United Kingdom exports to Scandinavia and Holland was 703,370 gallons. The increase of the United States exports during the same five months was 3,857,593 gallons, being five times as great as the British increase. The increase in the re-exports of unmanufactured tobacco from the United Kingdom to the same countries and over the same period was 2,937,244 lb.; the corresponding United States increase was 6,081,848 lb. The British increase is mainly due to the diversion of tobacco grown in the British dominions from continental to United Kingdom ports. The re-exports of manufactured tobacco from the United Kingdom have actually declined, while exports of this commodity from the United States to Scandinavia and the Netherlands have hitherto been relatively insignificant. It is, therefore, altogether improbable that the United States can have lost trade in tobacco in consequence of the measures taken by His Majesty's Govern ment. United Kingdom re-exports of cocoa have risen from 2,976,143 lb. in January-May 1914 to 14,504,013 lb in JanuaryMay 1915, an increase in round numbers of 11 millions. Exports from the United States for the same months have risen from 12,300 lb. in 1914 to 16,016,000 lb. in 1915, an increase of 16 millions. These figures speak for themselves. In the first five months of 1914 the United Kingdom re-exports of coffee to the same countries amounted to 80,407 cwt., and the exports from the United States to 7,376 cwt. In the corresponding five months of 1915 the United Kingdom re-exports were 263,488 cwt., while the imports from the United States were 285,760 cwt., showing that the United States exports, which were formerly much less, are now greater than those of the United Kingdom. In the case of rice, the increased re-export from the United Kingdom, which amounted to 193,458 cwt. for the period under review, was entirely due to the diversion to the United Kingdom ports of the large trade in Indian rice formerly carried on through Hamburg and other continental ports. The exports from the United States have increased from 262 cwt. in JanuaryMay 1914 to 27,800 cwt. in January-May 1915, an increase of 27,538 cwt. The United Kingdom increase in the export of wheat-flour to Scandinavia and the Netherlands during January-May 1915, compared with 1914, was 47,045 cwt. ; the United States increase was 2,555,593 cwt. for the same period. For the same period the United Kingdom increase in the export of barley to Scandinavia and the Netherlands was 249,512 cwt.; the United States increase, 2,016,892 cwt. I could point to many other instances of similar proportionate increases in the exports of the United States to Scandinavia and the Netherlands as compared with exports to the same countries from the United Kingdom during the last five months. In respect to the great majority of articles for which figures of United States trade can be given, the increases in this trade are |