Mr. Choate to Mr.
Hay.
American Embassy,
London, January 26,
1900.
No. 237.]Sir: I have the honor to report that after my
dispatch No. 234 of January 18, mailed in the bag of the 20th, I was
waited on by a local representative of Messrs. Flint, Eddy & Co.,
who showed me a letter dated January 9 from their New York house, which
stated that they had that day received a letter from Messrs. Bridler
& Co., stating that all goods shipped by the Maria, destined for Delagoa Bay, had been delivered, though
after considerable delay—whereupon I cabled you to that effect, partly
in cipher (copy annexed). The letter did not state whether all goods of
all shippers by the Maria had been so delivered,
or only those of Messrs. Flint, Eddy & Co. It simply said “all goods
shipped,” but I suppose that you have already ascertained that. It seems
to be the impression at the foreign office that all the cargo by the Maria, consigned to Delagoa Bay, has been
delivered there, and I sincerely hope so, for that would seem to dispose
of that case entirely.
[Page 573]
On the 23d I received your cable in cipher acknowledging and approving my
dispatch No. 231, and asking where prize court sits. On the 24th I had
an interview with Lord Salisbury, from whom I learned that there was a
prize court at Durban and another at Cape Town, but that the latter had
charge of the Mashona, which lies at that port,
presumably with her cargo, whereupon on the same day I sent you cipher
cable. On the same evening I received your further cipher cable about
the manifest of the Mashona, to which 1 at once
replied in cipher.
In my interview with Lord Salisbury on the 24th I hoped to receive his
answer to the offer of the Pennsylvania Milling Company to sell their
flour to Her Majesty’s Government, but he explained to me the
circumlocution through which that matter has had to go—first to the
admiralty—where it had to be referred to the treasury, where it was
decided that the real purchasers ought to be the Cape Colony and Natal,
and that cables accordingly had been sent to the authorities of those
colonies, and no answers had yet been received, but he hoped that the
flour would be purchased. Up to the present writing, however, I have
heard nothing further. He had received further advices in writing or by
cable about the cases of the Maria and the Beatrice, too voluminous to be stated or
remembered, but he undertook to furnish me without delay with a written
statement of the contents, which I am hourly expecting.
As to the Beatrice, he did say that they
discovered at the bottom of the vessel a lot of cargo (flour, I
understood him) belonging to the Transvaal Government, which of course
they would hold; that in order to get at it they had to take out the
whole overlying cargo, and that having been done the agent of the owner
of the ship thought it best to consent to its storage in the Government
warehouse, and that some of it had been taken away by the
consignees.
It is certainly very embarrassing to be without information upon which
you can predicate any claims which you may think it proper to present on
behalf of American owners, but the delay seems inevitable in the present
case.
I had some casual conversation with Lord Salisbury on the general
question of damages, but it was held over for further consideration when
the facts are more fully known, Lord Salisbury saying that we might rely
on his doing what was just.
Since writing the above I have received from Lord Salisbury two notes of
the 24th and 26th, respectively, respecting the Beatrice (copies annexed). As this is the first information
received about her, I cable you to-night in cipher the material part of
the latter note. Also a note of this date covering a memorandum about
the Maria, of which I send copies, but as my
present understanding is that all the Maria’s
goods belonging to American owners have already been delivered to
consignees at Delagoa Bay, at any rate all of Flint, Eddy & Co’s., I
do not cable that. Whether the “picks, handles, and lubricating oil
destined for the Netherlands Railway,” which is claimed by the
Government here to belong to the Transvaal Republic, are a part of
Grossman’s goods, I have not yet been able to discover. At my next visit
to the foreign office I shall endeavor to sift both these communications
further. And now comes yet another note from Mr. Barrington, saying: “We
have had no answer to the proposal that the flour should be bought on
the spot.”
Evidently much time yet will be required to get to the end of these
[Page 574]
tangled facts. Can you not
learn direct from the United States consul at Cape Town or Durban
exactly how the matter stands as to the cargo belonging to such American
owners as you wish to protect.
I have, etc.,
I inclose also a memorandum of information received since signing
this dispatch, showing that a part of Grossman’s goods are claimed
to be the property of the South African Republic. January 27,
1900.
[Inclosure 1 in No.
237.]
Lord Salisbury
to Mr. Choate.
Foreign Office, January 24, 1900.
Your Excellency: I have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 15th instant respecting
certain goods which were shipped from New York on board the British
steamer Beatrice, and I have to inform your
excellency that Her Majesty’s high commissioner for South Africa has
been instructed by telegraph to send home a full report of the
circumstances of the case.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No.
237.]
Mr. Bertie to
Mr. Choate.
Foreign Office, London, January 26, 1900.
Your Excellency: With reference to previous
correspondence respecting the case of the British vessel Beatrice, I have the honor to inform you
that, from a telegram which has been received from the high
commissioner for South Africa, dated the 23d instant, it appears
that it contained large quantities of goods, principally flour,
destined for the South African Republic, which the customs
authorities at East London required should be landed at that port.
The reason for this requirement was, doubtless, that the Beatrice, being a British ship, was, by
carrying goods destined for the enemy’s territory, illegally engaged
in trade with the enemy in contravention of Her Majesty’s
proclamation of December 27, 1899. As the cargo was stowed in such a
manner as to make it impossible to land the, goods destined for the
South African Republic without also discharging goods intended for
Portuguese East Africa, the master and agents preferred to land the
whole of the cargo at East London, where it has been stowed by the
customs. The removal of large quantities of the goods so landed has,
however, from time to time been permitted for the purposes of local
and bona fide Portuguese consumption.
The vessel sailed for Calcutta in ballast on December 11.
I have, etc.,
Francis
Bertie
.
(For the Marquis of Salisbury.)
[Inclosure 3 in No.
237.]
Mr. Bertie to
Mr. Choate.
Foreign Office, January 26, 1900.
Your Excellency: With reference to my note
of the 10th instant, respecting the case of the Maria, I have the honor to inclose a copy of a memorandum
on the subject which has been drawn up in this department, and which
contains all the facts of the case so far as they are at present
known in this country.
I have, etc.,
Francis
Bertie
,
(For the Marquis of Salisbury.)
[Inclosure 4 in No.
237.]
memorandum, re maria’s cargo.
American Embassy, January 27, 1900.
We have discovered by comparing the memorandum of the shipments
(inclosed in Messrs. Crossman’s letter of December 26th, transmitted
in Department’s instruction, No. 267, of January 2) with the
memorandum contained in the Netherlands Government’s protest,
addressed to the British Government, showing a list of that part of
the cargo of the Maria detained or seized at
Durban, from the marks which correspond in the two memorandums, that
the lubricating oil (1,000 cases), picks (84 cases), and handles (20
cases) consigned to Netherlands South African Railway, referred to
therein, were in fact shipped by Messrs. Crossman, and at the
foreign office it is understood that there was sufficient evidence
brought before the colonial authorities at Durban to show that
Netherlands Railway Company were the owners of these goods and not
Messrs. Crossman. The Netherlands Railway is held here to belong to
the South African Republic, and hence the goods were seized as
enemy’s property.
[Inclosure 5 in No.
237.]
memorandum on the case of the
maria.
The Maria is a Netherlands ship, probably
under charter to the American-African Line, a British company with
its principal place of business in London. She left America for
Delagoa Bay and called at Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, whence she
cleared for the Bay. She put into Durban for coal, where she
anchored in the roadstead on October 29. The Maria was boarded by the commander of Her Majesty’s ship
Tartar and consented to come up harbor.
No guard was placed on her. On finding that the agents were willing
to land “all the contraband” the commander informed them and the
port and customs authorities that this could be done and that the
vessel need no longer be detained.
The agents of the ship protested and wrote of her as “belonging” to
the British company called the American-African Line. The commander
of the Tartar pointed out in his reply that
British subjects could not, under the governor’s proclamation, trade
with the enemy, and mentioned the warning in a local customs notice
as to what would happen in case vessels carried contraband of war or
other goods of whatever nature the real destination of which was the
enemy or their agents in neutral ports.
Attached to the record, dated November 1, of the above proceedings is
a “summary of goods consigned” to the enemy Republic “seized and in
charge of customs, Port Natal—contraband of war included.” Under Maria are picks, handles, and lubricating oil
“destined” for the Netherlands Railway.
A letter of proceedings dated November 28 gives further particulars
and refers to the Maria’s cargo of flour as
having been landed, and states that in consequence of the receipt of
a telegram dated November 3 that food stuffs were not to be treated
as contraband the captain of Her Majesty’s ship Philomel informed the customs that the flour ex Maria should no longer be detained. It was
released, and while measures for reshipping it (no doubt on the
British steamer Matabele) were in progress it
was ascertained that it was intended to send it direct to Pretoria.
It was then provisionally detained again. But on it being found that
the flour was bona fide a part of the Maria’s
cargo the agents and all parties concerned were told that no further
restrictions would be placed on the shipment, but it was at the same
time pointed out that the flour was going direct to the enemy. The
governor’s proclamation against trading with the enemy was then
studied in connection with the abovementioned permission, “with the
result that agents, shippers, and shipowners all refused to ship or
carry the flour, and nobody would have anything to do with it.” No
objection of any sort was made by the naval authorities to the cargo
being forwarded to its destination.
The Maria must have left Durban soon after she
had landed her cargo, for it appears from a letter from Messrs.
Rennie & Co., dated Durban, November 20, that at the time of the
events narrated in the preceding paragraph the flour was being
shipped, not on the Maria, but on to the
British ship Matabele, and that it was
Messrs. Rennie & Co., a British firm, who, because it was
destined for the enemy, refused to carry it.
In a telegram of January 10 the high commissioner says that certain
goods for the Netherlands Railway were “seized” and the others
“detained,” and that any of the latter may be taken away on
application of authorized agents. He adds that it
[Page 576]
was not known whether that part of the
cargo which came from the United States is owned there.
On January 16 he was asked why the Maria did
not carry on the flour and other goods when released. He was also
requested to find out the nationality and place of residence of the
owners of the goods at the time of seizure, and any further
particulars that can be given.
No answer has as yet (January 23) been received to this telegram.
Mr. Choate’s note of January 4 states that Messrs. Flint, Eddy &
Co., United States citizens, of New York, shipped on the Maria 65 cases canned goods and Libbys, 40
cases lard, 20 bags peas and beans, 1 case lemon squeezers and nail
pullers, and 1 case hardware, invoiced to F. Bridler & Co. at
Lourenço Marquez and consigned to order. The note adds that the
goods were drawn against and are invoiced for account and risk of
consignees; but the goods not being delivered, the loss will rest
with the United States shippers, the actual owners thereof.
Mr. Choate asks for the restitution of the goods.
The canned goods, Libbys, 40 cases lard, and 20 bags peas and beans
above alluded to may be considered as being included in the “other
goods” mentioned on page 4 as having been released, after temporary
but erroneous detention as contraband. It appears probable that the
lemon squeezers, nail pullers, and hardware also mentioned were
released at the same time unless, indeed, they were never taken out
of the ship. A portion only of the Maria’s
cargo was taken out; the rest was doubtless carried to Delagoa
Bay.
The Maria is undoubtedly a Dutch ship, and her
agents introduced an element of confusion by speaking of her as
“belonging” to a British company; had she belonged to a British
company she would have been a British ship, and it would have been
unlawful for her to carry for the enemy. It is therefore possible
that some of the goods were removed from her on the erroneous
supposition that she could not lawfully carry them.
With regard to what is said in Mr. Choate’s note as to the goods
having been shipped at consignee’s risk and to the loss falling on
the United States shippers, it is not clearly understood how this
can be; it would rather appear that the loss would fall on the
consignees. No doubt a further explanation of this point will
eventually be furnished by the United States embassy.
