¹ 157 Sup. Ct. 758 (1937), 301 U. 8. 324; this JOURNAL, Vol 31, July, 1937, p. 537. See Jessup, ibid., p. 481.

² Cf. Etat Russe v. Ropit, Court of Cassation, 52 Clunet 391; 53 ibid. 667; 55 ibid. 674 (1925–1928). Cf. Savatier, “ Le sort cles biens cles anciennes socibtbs russes en France,”30 Revue Critique de Droit International 663 (1935); Nebolsine, “The Recovery of the Foreign Assets of Nationalized Russian Corporations,” 39 Yale L. J. 1130 (1930), discussing especially Petrogradsky Mejdunarodny Kommerchesky Bank v. National City Bank, 253 N. Y. 23, 170 N. E. 479 (1930), and other New York and foreign cases. Banco de Vizcaya v. Don Alfonso (1934), [1935]1 K. B. 140,151L . T. R. 499; this JOURNAL Vol. 30 (1936), p . 726.

³ 246 U. S. 297,38 Sup. Ct. 309 (1918).

⁴ [I921] 3 K. B. 532.

⁵ Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250, 18 Sup. Ct. 83 (1897).

⁶ 299 U. S. 304,57 Sup. Ct. 216 (1936); this JOURNAL, April, 1937, Vol. 31, p. 334.

⁷ It did apply to the Russian Government’s public property, such as the proceeds of the judgment against the Lehigh Valley Railroad and of the requisition of the Russian Volunteer Fleet.

⁸ Hamilton’s Works (Lodge ed.), V, 406.

⁹ In the Rogdai, 278 Fed. 294,279 Fed. 130 (1920); the Penza, 277 Fed. 91 (1921), the unrecognized Soviet wss denied the right to sue.

¹⁰ Cf. Vladikavkazsky Railway Co. v. New York Tmt Co., 263 N. Y. 369, 189 N. E. 456 (1934); Russian and English Bank v. Baring Bms. (H. L.), [I936] A. C. 405.

¹¹ Cummjngs, Atty. Gen., v. Deutsohe Bank, 300 U. 8.115,57 Sup. Ct. 359 (Feb. 1,1937); this JOURNAL, July, 1937, Vol. 31, p. 532.

¹² Cf. editorial, “Reprisals on Private Property,” this JOURNAL, Vol.30 (1936), p. 108.

¹³ 83 Fed. (2d) 554, and on rehearing. 83 Fed. (2d) 562 (1934). These are brilliant opinions for a unanimous court by Groner, J., and like the opinion of the C. C. A. (2d Circ.) in the Belmont case, impress the writer as far sounder than the decision and opinion of the Supreme Court. Judge Groner held that the owners of the 80% ordered returned had a vested right therein which the Congress could not impair by withholding the property from a few of the owners who, by reason of government delays or third party attachments, had not by 1934 received physical possession of their property.

¹⁴ He relied upon the court’s opinion in the Chemical Foundation Case, 272 U. 8. 1, 9,47 Sup. Ct. 1,4 (1926), written by himself, an opinion evidencing the pawions of war and, it is believed, equally injurious to the long-run interests of the United States and not correctly reflecting the intent of Congress. Congrees, in paying over the income on the seimdproperty . has always dealt with it as the sequestrated property of the original owner.

¹⁵ Compania Espanola de Navegación Maritima v. Spanish Steamship Navemer, the Spanish Ambaasador, appellant, decided June, 1937.

¹⁶ It is difficult to perceive how the Spanish owners could have invoked the diplomatic channel against a confiscatory act of their own Government or an erroneous claim of the Ambassador. The court apparently declined to follow the Jupiter, No. 3, L. R. [1927] P. 122, 250, in which the Court of Appeal refused to apply a Russian confiscatory decree to a ship within British waters.