State of the Union AddressesTaft, William H. (William Howard)
History
State of the Union Addresses
Taft, William H. (William Howard)
Presidents -- United States -- Messages; United States -- Politics and government -- Sources
The United States was ably represented before the tribunal. The complicated
history of the questions arising made the issue depend, more than
ordinarily in such cases, upon the care and skill with which our case was
presented, and I should be wanting in proper recognition of a great
patriotic service if I did not refer to the lucid historical analysis of
the facts and the signal ability and force of the argument--six days in
length--presented to the Court in support of our case by Mr. Elihu Root. As
Secretary of State, Mr. Root had given close study to the intricate facts
bearing on the controversy, and by diplomatic correspondence had helped to
frame the issues. At the solicitation of the Secretary of State and myself,
Mr. Root, though burdened by his duties as Senator from New York, undertook
the preparation of the case as leading counsel, with the condition imposed
by himself that, in view of his position as Senator, he should not receive
any compensation.
The Tribunal constituted at The Hague by the Governments of the United
States and Venezuela has completed its deliberations and has rendered an
award in the case of the Orinoco Steamship Company against Venezuela. The
award may be regarded as satisfactory since it has, pursuant to the
contentions of the United States, recognized a number of important
principles making for a judicial attitude in the determining of
international disputes.
In view of grave doubts which had been raised as to the constitutionality
of The Hague Convention for the establishment of an International Prize
Court, now before the Senate for ratification, because of that provision of
the Convention which provides that there may be an appeal to the proposed
Court from the decisions of national courts, this government proposed in an
Identic Circular Note addressed to those Powers who had taken part in the
London Maritime Conference, that the powers signatory to the Convention, if
confronted with such difficulty, might insert a reservation to the effect
that appeals to the International Prize Court in respect to decisions of
its national tribunals, should take the form of a direct claim for
compensation; that the proceedings thereupon to be taken should be in the
form of a trial de novo, and that judgment of the Court should consist of
compensation for the illegal capture, irrespective of the decision of the
national court whose judgment had thus been internationally involved. As
the result of an informal discussion it was decided to provide such
procedure by means of a separate protocol which should be ratified at the
same time as the Prize Court Convention itself.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account