Yesterday in an interview with Lord Salisbury the matter was further
discussed, and upon my stating to him that now that the ship had been
adjudged not to be an offender against the municipal law against trading
with the enemy, Her Majesty’s Government would seem to be liable to make
good all damage done to the innocent shipper of cargo, he said the
natural inquiry was what price Mr. Geldart would consider sufficient to
make him good, whereupon I sent to you a cable of inquiry on that
point.
[Inclosure.]
Mr. Choate to
Lord Salisbury.
American Embassy,
London, June 9,
1900.
My Lord: With reference to my note of the
4th of January last, in relation to the detention by the British
authorities in South Africa of merchandise shipped by R. W. Geldart
from New York to Delagoa Bay, I have the honor to inclose herewith
for your lordship’s further information copies of letters from Mr.
Geldart to the Secretary of State of the United States, dated the
1st and 7th ultimo, respectively, with respect to certain goods,
viz, 200 bags of flour, 40 cases canned beef, 20 cases canned
salmon, shipped by him on board the steamship Mashona.
It appears from Mr. Geldart’s letter, dated the 7th of May last, that
the British director of supplies, in accordance with an agreement
entered into with the consul-general of the United States at Cape
Town (Mr. Stowe), has offered to purchase the seized goods at a 10
per cent profit above invoice cost after deduction of buying
commission carried on the face of such invoice. Such an arrangement,
Mr. Geldart claims, would not meet the draft, with charges,
interest, and protest expenses.
It would appear, according to the judgment of the British prize court
at Cape Town that there was probable cause for the seizure and
detention of the Mashona, as for the treating
with the enemy; but the court released the vessel on the ground that
she had not in fact treated with the enemy nor intended to do so,
except with the express or implied permission of the British
authorities.
In view of the grounds put forward for the seizure of the Mashona and of the grounds stated by the
court for releasing the ship, the cargo, except so far as
contraband, would seem to have the same status as though it had been
found aboard a British vessel trading solely between neutral ports.
The court, however, states that there is no question of contraband
in the case. The seizure not having been made or justified on
account of contraband goods, the effect of the decision would appear
to be, therefore, either that Her Majesty’s Government has the right
to seize neutral and noncontraband goods aboard British vessels
trading between neutral ports or else that the American owners of
such goods would be entitled to full compensation for their damages,
and in effecting a settlement by sale of the goods to Her Majesty’s
Government, in the opinion of my Government, the owners should not,
therefore, be expected to make sale on such terms as would involve
loss to them by reason of the wrongful action of the British
authorities. The decision of the court that the vessel was not
engaged in trading with the enemy would seem to make your lordship’s
suggestion that the owners of the cargo must first look for their
damages to the ship and its owners as having been guilty of
misconduct which caused the damage would therefore seem to be
inapplicable at any rate to the present case; and I therefore have
the honor to ask your lordship to consider the matter further, so
that you may, if not inconsistent with your view of justice in such
a case, direct the purchase of Mr. Geldart’s goods, wrongfully
detained, at a price which would be at least sufficient to protect
him from loss, he being manifestly an innocent sufferer. The amount
involved in this case is comparatively trifling, but the principles
upon which its disposition depends are of considerable
importance.
I have, etc.,
