His lordship wishes it to be distinctly understood, however, that these
payments are made purely “ex gratia,” having regard to the special
circumstances of this particular case, no legal liability being admitted
by Her Majesty’s Government either to purchase the goods or for the
expenses which he has incurred.
I therefore await your further instructions before accepting the drafts
for the before-mentioned amounts in payment of Mr. Geldart’s claim.
[Inclosure.]
Lord Salisbury
to Mr. Choate.
Foreign Office, July 20, 1900.
Your Excellency: I have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt of your notes of the 9th and of the 26th
ultimo respecting Mr. Geldart’s shipments to South Africa by the Mashona and by the Beatrice. The first of your excellency’s notes was under
my consideration when the second arrived. The action which the
second enables me to take renders it unnecessary for me to do more
than to notice one point in the first. Your excellency writes on the
9th ultimo:
“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 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.”
I must at once correct the apprehension, which, as I think, underlies
this statement
[Page 618]
of
alternatives. In the present instance Her Majesty’s Government have
neither exercised nor claimed any such right as that indicated;
neither have they seized neutral and noncontraband goods; the goods
of that description found on board the Mashona were not seized; their passage to Lorenzo Marques
was interrupted; but by this interruption they were detained only so
far as their presence on board of the ship, which had been arrested,
made their detention unavoidable.
Had the prize court held that the arrest of the ship was not
justified, it would presumably have awarded damages against the
captors of the ship, and the damage would presumably have been so
calculated as to enable the ship to meet the merchants’ claims
arising out of the unjustified interruption of the voyage. But the
court did not so hold, and, as it appears to me, the ship must
therefore bear the consequences of the arrest and must meet the
merchants’ claims.
The case of neutral-owned and noncontraband goods on board the
British ship Beatrice, mentioned in your
excellency’s note of the 25th ultimo, is analogous to that of
similar goods on board the Mashona. The Beatrice by the law of her flag could not
legally carry goods destined for the enemy; if, therefore, she
shipped such goods, she must bear the consequences of her act. Among
those consequences was the delaying of the goods until such time as
they could be placed on a ship that could legally carry them on to
Lorenzo Marques.
The offer of the British director of supplies to purchase any of the
goods originally carried by the Mashona, or
other ships, was authorized by Her Majesty’s Government, because it
appeared to be a convenient way of making good to the neutral owners
the loss which must accrue to them through the delay caused by the
arrest of the carrying ship, and, as the case may be, by the
necessary landing of them from ships that could not legally carry
them. This course had the manifest advantage of saving the owners
the trouble of recovering damages from the carrying ships.
The price offered by the director would be fixed by the commercial
considerations which regulate such offers, and would not take into
consideration the events in consequence of which the goods chanced
to be purchasable at Cape Town.
The above observations have no reference to the stoppage of Mr.
Geldart’s goods at Port Elizabeth. I am ignorant of the cause of the
stoppage, and have asked Her Majesty’s secretary of state for the
colonies to inquire into it.
But Her Majesty’s Government are willing to agree to the proposal
made in your note of the 26th ultimo and to pay Mr. Geldart $1,000
in full payment of his claim with respect to his shipments by the
Mashona, and $575 in full of his claim
for his shipments by the Beatrice. These
payments are made on the understanding that they will secure the
delivery of the goods free from all further claims whatsoever.
It must be distinctly understood that these payments are made purely
“ex gratia” and having regard to the special circumstances of this
particular case. No liability is admitted by Her Majesty’s
Government either to purchase the goods or to compensate Mr. Geldart
for the losses or for the expenses which he has incurred.
On hearing from your excellency that these terms are accepted, I
shall be happy to forward to you, for payment to Mr. Geldart, drafts
for the above-mentioned amounts.
I have, etc.,
