Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay.
Sir: I have the honor to report that since my dispatch No. 231, dated January 12, was written, the following has happened in respect to the seizures of American goods:
On the 15th 1 received information from the foreign office that the Mashona had no manifest on board, which might give trouble about the ownership of cargo, whereupon I sent you a cipher cable, to which I have as yet received no reply.
On the 14th (Sunday) I received your cable of the 13th, giving further details of the milling company’s shipments, which showed their continued title to the goods shipped until delivery at Delagoa Bay; and that you still desired me to present it, notwithstanding my reference to it in my cable of the 10th. I accordingly prepared and sent to Lord Salisbury a statement of the Pennsylvania Milling Company’s case as directed, dated the 13th (copy annexed).
On the 15th I received your instructions, Nos. 267 and 268, of January 2, containing respectively documents in the case of Messrs.W. H. Crossman & Brother and additional documents in the cases of Mr. R. W. Geldart and Messrs. Flint, Eddy & Co.
I thereupon prepared and sent to Lord Salisbury notes setting forth their cases and claims, dated January 15 (copies annexed).
The same mail brought me your instruction No. 269, but as most of the ground covered by it had already been covered by my interview with Lord Salisbury of January 10, cabled to you on that day, and he bad substantially disavowed the seizure of the Maria and agreed to [Page 564] make restitution of the goods, and impliedly reparation to their owners, and in the case of the Mashona had explained its situation in the prize court, and agreed that the cargo was not contraband and would be delivered to the American owners on proof of ownership, as stated in my cable of the 10th, and more fully in my dispatch No. 231. I shaped accordingly the claims made in the several cases presented, and took it for granted that you would not have me complain of pretensions which he had not set up. I was also in daily expectation of receiving your answer to my advice that the owners should accept the suggestion of Lord Salisbury to sell to the British Government at the prices to be fixed on the basis named by the Pennsylvania Milling Company, which, if carried out, would probably close the whole matter. As to the costs and damages incurred, if any, he has not thus far shown any disposition to deny liability, but only to postpone, until we both knew the facts, further discussion about it.
I inquired constantly at the foreign office for Lord Salisbury, but he did not come again to town until Tuesday, the 16th, when I had an interview with him. I took it for granted that you were looking after the prize court; but, knowing the summary character of the proceedings in such courts, I was apprehensive of what might happen there if the counsel for the Government and the court should be left to their own devices in respect to the question to be passed upon there, and I also thought it was very strange that I had received no more information in respect to the facts involved in the several seizures. On the first point he was very satisfactory. I told him in substance all that I had cabled you after our interview of the 10th, and that I had had no reply; but I urged him to cable out to the prosecuting officer at the prize court what we had at that interview agreed upon as to the Mashona, which he very promptly consented to do at once, but said it would have to go through the colonial office. Before I had left his office he had prepared it and sent it over to Mr. Chamberlain, and I was promised a copy next day.
I then pressed for more information, as my Government ought not to be left so in the dark about the grounds of detention and removal of the goods in the cases of the Maria and the Beatrice, and that I could not understand why full accounts had not been received of such actions so prejudicial to our citizens which had happened a month ago. He, however, could not give me any more information about the Maria and the Mashona than was contained in a cable received from Sir Alfred Milner, from Capetown, on the 10th, of which I inclose a copy. I complained of the effect of his answers, even as to the cargoes of the two vessels, that the owners might go and take them where they were, and could not get precise information where to go for them. I got the impression that he was much embarrassed by the extraordinary slowness of the people at the cape, but was evidently desirous of communicating all information that he had, or could get, and we made an appointment for the next day.
In the meantime, on Wednesday morning, the 17th, I received your cable of inquiry. This was directly in the line of what I had constantly been pressing him for. We met in the afternoon and he gave me a copy of the cable which, at my request, he had prepared and sent over to the colonial office, and which showed upon its face that it had been sent off the same night (I annex a copy); but he had not yet received “the facts” and could not give me any more than I immediately cabled [Page 565] you (copy annexed). I protested again most earnestly that our goods ought not to be taken out of our hands short of the port of destination, and no department of his Government be able, after so long a time, to find out why. He could only answer as before.
You will observe what Sir Alfred Milner said in his cable of the 10th about the Mashona, but Lord Salisbury could not tell whether the whole or part of her cargo was with her or had been discharged at Durban or at Port Elizabeth, as the papers stated, but he promised that his inquiries should not cease until he was able to answer my questions. We discussed somewhat the questions of law involved. He claims no blockade or siege of Delagoa Bay, but only, so far as I can understand, the right to seize goods really contraband of war on the high seas which are destined for the enemy’s forces, a question in which we are not yet directly involved; but if our goods are to be treated in this way, and taken out of the ship because there are some such articles on board shipped by other people, our indirect interest is considerable.
I suppose that “the failure to find bills of lading” on the Mashona, as stated by Sir Alfred Milner, is the same thing which was reported as the want of a “manifest” the day before.
I hope very soon to receive your views on my cable of the 10th, and on the two notes of Lord Salisbury, of which I gave you the substance there, and the full text in my dispatch No 231.
I have, etc.,
Mr. Choate to Lord Salisbury.
My Lord: I have the honor to state that I am instructed by my Government to inform your lordship that the president of the Pennsylvania Milling Company, an American corporation created by the State of Pennsylvania, the owner of the seized flour hereinafter mentioned, has filed his personal affidavit in the State Department, by which it appears that that company has been for several years engaged in the sale of flour to merchants engaged in trade in various parts of South Africa, and has never sold flour with direct or ulterior destination to the South African Republic, by resale or otherwise; that all its sales have been made for the ordinary uses of life; that since the war broke out the company has made no sales of flour to merchants or others in the South African Republic; that said company sold May 20, 1899, 2,000 bags of flour, branded Speria, and marked Q. & Co., Delagoa Bay; also June 10 1,512 bags of flour, branded Goldfields, and marked diamond T, with letter S outside the diamond, T S, Delagoa Bay—all of which it shipped, consigned to Delagoa Bay, on the Dutch steamer Maria, leaving New York about August 15, freight prepaid by said company, and which is now reported to have been landed, under orders of the British Government, at Port Natal, and to be now in custom-house there.
And that the same company also sold, June 10, 1,356 bags flour,
branded Gold-fields, and marked diamond
outside Delagoa Bay, and 4,359 bags flour, branded
Johannesburg, and marked diamond B, with letter M outside
Delagoa Bay, and consigned to Delagoa Bay, all of which
was shipped on the British steamer Beatrice,
leaving New York about October 12—freight prepaid by the company—all
of which has now been reported to have been discharged into lighters
at East London, by orders of Her Majesty’s Government. And that said
company also sold, July 20, 3, 154 bags of flour, branded
Johannesburg, and marked diamond B, letter M outside diamond
Delagoa Bay, and consigned to Delagoa Bay, which was
shipped on the British steamer Mashona,
leaving New York on October 30—freight prepaid by
[Page 566]
the company—and which is now reported
as having been discharged at Durban, under orders of the prize
court. All these sales were made by the milling company to be
delivered at Delagoa Bay, and remain the company’s property until so
delivered.
My Government is still awaiting with great anxiety your lordship’s promised statement of the grounds of seizure in the case of the Beatrice, and of the grounds of detention and removal of the cargo at Port Natal, short of the port of destination, in the case of the Maria.
In the case of the Mashona, which, in your lordship’s letter of the 10th instant, is stated to have been seized and taken in for adjudication on the charge of trading with the enemy, and where the flour was not seized as contraband, and is not claimed to be contraband, and certainly could not be involved in the charge against the ship, it is manifestly a great hardship for the owners of the flour to be compelled to go into the prize court for it, at a port short of the port of destination, even to prove their ownership, which necessarily involves costs and damages for detention and possible deterioration.
The president of the milling company represents that in the climate of South Africa flour soon spoils unless cared for. He would, however, be satisfied if the British Government would pay for the flour at its value at Delagoa Bay at the time it would have arrived in due course of voyage if the same had been uninterrupted.
I have, etc.,