its diplomatic officers to request an early and favorable consideration of the protocol, that this Government would much appreciate the cooperation of each of the original proposers, and therefore asks that appropriate instructions be given by the Governments of Germany, France, and Great Britain to its diplomatic officers in support of the initiative already taken by the United States. In your interview with the secretary of state for foreign affairs you will assure him of the deep interest that the United States takes in the prompt establishment of the prize court, and that this proposed action is based upon the belief that the cooperation of the original proposers will be able to secure the establishment of this much-needed and long-delayed international institution. You may lay stress upon the fact that the department considers the acceptance of the declaration of London as well as the additional protocol as essential to the establishment and the successful working of the tribunal. You will also call attention to the fact, as a means to secure prompt and hearty cooperation, that the proposers of the original convention can not well expect the nations to accept the convention and put it into effect if the sponsors do not agree upon the form which it should take. I am, etc., No. 466.] The Secretary of State to Chargé Schuyler. P. C. KNOX. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 1 SIR: The department learned with sincere pleasure, by Mr. O'Brien's telegram of the 9th ultimo and his dispatch No. 1221,1 of the same day's date, that the Japanese Government had instructed its representative at The Hague to sign the additional protocol of the international prize court convention without reservation of any kind. In regard to the Japanese memorandum dated May 9, 1910, transmitted by Mr. O'Brien in his dispatch No. 1160 of May 10, 1910,1 and referred to by the Japanese note dated July 29, 1910, inclosed in his No. 1221 under acknowledgment, the department feels that the language of the protocol is sufliciently broad to meet the desires of the Japanese Government, because the existence of constitutional difficulties is a matter of internal relations into which international law does not ordinarily inquire, and the official statement that such difficulties exist and that the Government desires to avail itself of the alternative procedure contained in the additional protocol would be final and binding. In the next place, the expression of constitutional difficulties is very broad and relates not merely to provisions of a constitution, but also to the internal organization, whether it depends upon a constitution or the laws or practice of a country. From this point of view constitutional convenience or inconvenience would be determinative, and a preference for the alternative procedure proposed by the additional protocol and based upon convenience or inconvenience would be a sufficient justification of the determination of the Government in favor of the alternative procedure stipulated for in the protocol. In any event, the question is one for the decision of the Government wishing to avail itself of the alternative procedure. This view of the matter is understood to be the view of the Netherlands Government, and the department understands that that Government, as transmitter of the additional protocol, will make a formal statement to this effect. You will present these views to the Japanese Government and inform the minister of foreign affairs that the department appreciates the motives of the Japanese Government, shares in them, and believes that the purpose of the Japanese memorandum dated May 9, 1910, will be realized in practice without the necessity of formal amendment or interpretation of the protocol. You will take an early opportunity to express to the Japanese Government the department's high appreciation of its acceptance in principle of the proposition of the United States as laid down in the identic circular note of October 18, 1909, to invest the prize court with the functions and jurisdiction of the court of arbitral justice. In doing so the Japanese Government states that it believes it advisable to proceed to the establishment of the prize court and to delay any action regarding the establishment of the court of arbitral justice until such time as the prize court has been established. The Department of State concurs in this view and will defer international consideration of the project to establish the court of arbitral justice until the prize court is instituted, so as not in any way to jeopardize the establishment of the latter institution. I am, etc., (For Mr. Knox.) ALVEY A. ADEE. The Acting Secretary of State to Chargé Hibben. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 10, 1910. SIR: I inclose herewith for the legation's information a copy of an identic instruction sent to the American diplomatic officers accredited to the Governments signatory of The Hague International Prize Court Convention who did not sign the additional protocol thereto at The Hague on September 19 last, or who did not at that time express their intention to adhere to the protocol. I am, etc., ALVEY A. ADEE. The Secretary of State to Chargé Benson.1 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 17, 1910. SIR: In view of the fact that the Government of the Netherlands has no diplomatic representative at La Paz, and also in view of a suggestion made by the Netherlands minister for foreign affairs to the American Legation at The Hague, you are instructed to act as the agent of the Government of the Netherlands to present officially 1 Same, mutatis mutandis, to the following legations: Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Peru, Salvador. to the Government of Bolivia the additional protocol (signed September 19, 1910) to the convention providing for the creation of an international prize court, and urge the early ratification by the Government of Bolivia both of the additional protocol and of the original prize-court convention. A copy of the draft of the additional protocol in the French language is forwarded herewith in order that you may carry out this instruction. The authenticated copies of the additional protocol have not yet been furnished by the Government of the Netherlands. I am, etc., No. 174.] The Secretary of State to Chargé Hibben. P. C. KNOX. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 17, 1910. SIR: In reply to your No. 446' of November 21 last, the department desires you to inform the Netherlands minister of foreign affairs that this department will, as requested by him, use its good offices with the Governments of the Latin-American countries which signed the international prize-court convention and in which the Government of the Netherlands has no diplomatic representatives, with a view to obtaining the early ratification of the additional protocol as well as of the international prize-court convention. Instructions have been sent to our diplomatic representatives accredited to those Governments for the purpose above mentioned. I am, etc., 1 See p. 631. * Supra. P. C. KNOX. SIR: I have the honor to report that Mr. Horton, consul general at Athens, has called to my attention the case of Mrs. of a native American, married to a Greek, who now, as she writes to Mr. Horton, has deserted her and returned to his native country, where, as she suspects, he purposes to take another wife. Both Mr. Horton's inquiries and my own have been fruitless to locate the man; and even had we been successful in this no substantial relief could have been found for Mrs. The Greek Church is established by the constitution, and it and the Greek Nation are practically coeval. Marriage is, therefore, by Greek law, a sacrament and not a civil contract, and has no validity unless the ceremony is performed by an orthodox priest. Accordingly, a Greek who marries in a foreign jurisdiction is at perfect freedom to regard his marriage bonds annulled upon returning to Greek jurisdiction; and Mr. Horton tells me that several cases of this character have occurred during his residence here. There seems to be no remedy. The British minister here tells me that his countrywomen have encountered this difficulty, and that he found himself powerless to help them. He added that a similar condition formerly existed in respect of Anglo-French marriages contracted in Great Britain, and that a special convention was necessary to remedy it. Such recourse can not be had here by reason of the peculiar ecclesiastical situation, but I have the honor to suggest that the publication in America by the department of the conditions outlined above might serve as some measure of protection to American women who contemplate matrimony with Greek subjects. I have, etc., GEORGE H. MOSES. TRIAL IN GREECE OF GREEK SUBJECTS FOR EXTRADITABLE CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE UNITED STATES. No. 32.] The Secretary of State to Minister Moses. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 20, 1910. SIR: I inclose herewith a copy of a circular issued by the police department of McKeesport, Pa., requesting the arrest of Charlie Sotirakos, who is wanted at that place on a charge of murder. 1 Not printed. You will transmit this circular to the Greek foreign office for its information, and add that the accused is reported by the police authorities of Allegheny County, Pa., to be now under arrest and in jail at Athens, Greece, on a charge of strangling a woman in Piraeus. You will report to the department the status or result of the trial of the fugitive for this crime committed in Piraeus; also whether it would be possible to have the fugitive tried in Greece for the crime committed in the United States. SIR: I have the honor to confirm my telegram of the 23d instant,1 relating to Charlie (alias Kyriakoulis), Sotirakos, who is wanted by the police of McKeesport, Pa., for the murder of his wife at that place August 6, 1909. By a note from the foreign office I am informed that Sotirakos is now in jail at Athens awaiting indictment. Referring to your instruction No. 32 of May 20, ultimo, inquiring whether Sotirakos can be tried in Greece for the crime committed in the United States, I have the honor to report that, since Greek law does not recognize naturalization without the consent of the King, Sotirakos, regardless of his status in America, is regarded as a Greek subject and may be brought to trial here for crimes committed anywhere. Athens, December 29, 1910. SIR: Referring to the department's instruction No. 32 relating to the case of Charlie Sotirakos, I have the honor to report that the legation has received from the lawyer employed to watch the trial of Sotirakos at Lamia, a report stating that Sotirakos was convicted of murder in the second degree for the murder committed in Piraeus, and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. The prosecuting attorney informed the jury. that investigation is taking place of the crime committed by Sotirakos in McKeesport, Pa., and that before long he would be tried for the same by the Greek criminal court. I have, etc., FREDERIC DE BILLIER. 1 Not printed. 67942° -FR 1910 41 |