The rejection of these claims, which may all fairly be held to belong to
the same class, is based on a strict interpretation of the principles of
international law, and His Majesty’s Government are not prepared to
dispute the decision arrived at by the United States Government with
regard to them, but they have nevertheless instructed me to bring
unofficially to your notice certain Considerations on the subject which
appear to be worthy of attention.
Not the least of the calamities resulting from a state of war is the loss
caused thereby to the subjects or citizens of neutral powers possessing
property or engaged in business in the affected area. It often happens
that destruction of that property or damage to that business is a matter
of military necessity to one of the belligerants, and as such no
compensation can be claimed on strictly legal grounds. The hardship in
such cases is nevertheless so manifest that it has become usual for the
Government whose troops have been concerned to grant a reasonable
indemnity to the sufferers, not as a right, but as a matter of grace and
favor.
This practice was lately exemplified when His Majesty’s Government
granted a sum of money to the subjects and citizens of foreign powers
who had been compelled by the British military authorities to leave
South Africa on account of the war, in order to indemnify them for any
loss they might have suffered through their expulsion. This measure,
from which, as you are aware, United States citizens benefited [Page 480] to the extent of £6,000, was
not one which His Majesty’s Government were obliged to take by the rules
of international law, but was adopted entirely ex
gratia.
It appears to His Majesty’s Government that these claims of British
subjects in Cuba and the Philippines belong to the class described
above, in view of the grave and peculiar hardship suffered by the
claimants, and they have instructed me once more to approach you
unofficially with regard to them, and to express the earnest hope that
Congress may be disposed to consider the subject and grant a reasonable
sum by way of indemnity as a matter of grace and favor.
The details of all but one of these claims are already familiar to the
United States Government, and I will not trouble you with a
recapitulation of them, but I venture to transmit a memorandum setting
forth the special circumstances in each case which would appear to
entitle the claimant to favorable consideration.
The remaining claim, that of Mr. J. Walter Higgin, is now presented for
the first time, and I have accordingly added a note giving details
regarding it at the end of the inclosed memorandum.
[Inclosure.]
Memorandum on claims of certain British subjects
against the United States Government on account of losses
incurred through the action of United. States troops in Cuba and
the Philippines.
1. Claim of Mr. William Hardman (£93).
This claim is for property destroyed through the action of United
States troops at Siboney, Cuba, on July 28, 1898.
It was recommended to the favorable consideration of Congress in a
special message of the President on December 13, 1901, but was
adversely reported by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on
January 23, 1902.
The rejection of the claim by the committee is based solely on the
absence of legal liability on strict principles of law, but it would
seem that the case is one in which compensation might very well be
granted as a matter of grace and favor, especially in view of the
fact that it was recommended to the favorable consideration of
Congress, without qualification, in a special message from the
President.
2. Claim of the Philippines Mineral Syndicate
($113,776.72 Mexican).
This claim is for losses incurred owing to damage inflicted on the
property of the syndicate in the neighborhood of Mambulao, province
of Camarines del Norte, Luzon, through the policy pursued by the
United States military authorities.
There are certain special circumstances in connection with this case
which, while they do not perhaps afford legal ground for demanding
compensation, are yet of such a nature as to entitle it to the
consideration of Congress as a matter of grace and favor. Although
these facts are already in the possession of the United States
Government, they may be briefly recapitulated.
In March, 1899, the United States authorities were warned that the
nature of the syndicate’s property was such as to invite attack and
that some of the mineral deposits were of such a kind as to afford
an easy revenue for the benefit of the insurgents. In thus advising
the authorities and so rendering, as it would appear, a signal
service to the United States Government, the syndicate urged that
steps should be taken to protect their property and to prevent the
insurgents from deriving advantage from it in the prosecution of
hostilities, and they thus acted not only in accordance with their
own interest, but likewise with that of the United States.
Although thus apprised that there was a valuable property belonging
to the citizens of a friendly foreign power, the owners of which
were prepared to aid the United States forces in protecting it, and
incidentally in preventing the insurgents from obtaining an
advantage in conducting their hostile operations, no effort was [Page 481] made by the United States
military authorities to communicate with the agents of the
syndicate.
On July 8, 1899, two United States gunboats entered the Bay of
Mambulao, and the chief engineer of the syndicate went out in a boat
to meet them. The vessels immediately opened fire, without giving
him an opportunity to disclose his identity, character, or purpose,
so that he was obliged to retire in peril of his life.
There were at that time no insurgents or other hostile forces at
Mambulao, and the peaceful inhabitants of the village instantly
fled. After doing a little damage to the village and without
effecting or attempting to effect a landing or making any inquiries
or inviting any communication with the syndicate’s agents after the
repulse given to the chief engineer, the gunboats steamed out of the
bay.
This demonstration of military force, followed by immediate
abandonment, had the consequence of attracting to the scene the
hostile Tagalos, who, seeing the place abandoned alike by the
peaceful inhabitants and by the military authorities, entered the
district, plundered and destroyed the property of the syndicate, and
robbed the European employees even of their personal effects.
Repeated requests made by the syndicate for military protection or
for the privilege of arming the employees, so as to enable them to
protect themselves and their employers’ property having been alike
refused by the United States military authorities previous to this
time, no effectual resistance could be offered to the insurgents;
and the servants of the syndicate remained at the mercy of the
latter, who prevented their egress, while the United States military
authorities maintained a blockade and prevented them from securing
assistance or from communication of any sort with the outside
world.
It further appears that the known friendly attitude of the syndicate
and its agents to the United States was the cause of the needless
and malicious destruction by the insurgents of such of the
syndicate’s property as was not stolen.
3. Claim of Messrs. Hoskyn & Co. ($207,416.30 Mexican).
4. Claim of Messrs. W. F. Stevenson & Co.
($122,876.77 Mexican).
5. Claim of Mr. J. Walter Higgin ($385 Mexican).
This claim, the details of which have only reached His Majesty’s
embassy since the presentation and rejection of the two preceding
ones, has never hitherto been presented to the United States
Government. It is for compensation for the loss of 35 cases of
whisky stored in the warehouse of Messrs. Hoskyn & Co. at
Iloilo, which were destroyed by fire during the bombardment of that
town by United States forces on February 11, 1899. Details
respecting it will be found at the end of this memorandum.
These three claims are all founded on the same circumstances, and
grow out of the destruction of the property of the claimants at the
time of the bombardment of Iloilo.
The United States Government are already in possession of full
particulars regarding the first two, and it is not therefore
necessary to recapitulate the circumstances in detail; but the
events which gave rise to all three claims would appear to be such
as would entitle the claimants to compensation ex
gratia.
On February 10, 1899, the officer commanding the United States forces
before Iloilo issued a notice to the foreign consuls in that town in
the following form:
“In view of anticipated hostility, notice is hereby given you to
cause all persons who are under your protection to seek a place of
safety before 5 a.m. Sunday, the 12th instant.
“Hostilities may commence at any time after that hour and date.”
He also sent an ultimatum to the Filipinos to the effect that, should
they attempt to strengthen their defenses or throw up intrenchments,
they would be attacked at once, but he failed to inform the consuls
that this ultimatum had been sent.
As a matter of fact the Filipinos did make this attempt, with the
result that the United States forces began the bombardment nearly
twenty-four hours before the time mentioned in the notice to the
consuls.
It is plain from the wording of the above notice that the United
States forces were the attacking party, and that in the absence of
the attack made by them no hostilities would have ensued.
The effect of the notice and ultimatum on the insurgents appears to
have been to cause them to use the time at their disposal to collect
materials for the destruction by fire of the town, which they felt
themselves unable effectually to defend; for, when the United States
forces attacked, they encountered no resistance from the insurgents,
who at once occupied themselves with the retaliatory measure of
setting fire to the town and the property it contained.
It is clear, therefore, that had the United States forces attempted
to take possession of the town on the 10th instant they could have
done so without effective opposition, and that the destruction of
the claimants’ property would thus have been prevented, [Page 482] that by postponing the
attack in the first instance they gave the insurgents the chance of
preparing for the destruction of the claimants’ property, and that
by subsequently attacking before the time mentioned in the notice
they deprived the claimants of the opportunity of protecting that
property.
The terms of the notice led the claimants to believe that they would
not be subject to any of the effects of a bombardment until 5 a.m.
on February 12, 1899; and by the precipitation of the attack by
nearly twenty-four hours their property, not yet having been placed
in safety, was left at the mercy of the insurgents, who, of course,
carried out their prearranged plan of firing the town by just so
long in advance of the time when it would otherwise have
occurred.
While the right of military authorities thus to proceed in advance of
their notice, with or without warning, can not be disputed,-the
issue of the notice and its subsequent violation undoubtedly placed
the claimants in a worse position than if no notice had been given;
and the further notice or ultimatum issued to the Filipino leaders,
and not communicated to the foreign consuls, had the effect of
placing the neutral aliens at a greater disadvantage in the attack
by the United States forces than the hostile insurgents.
note on the claim of mr. j. walter
higgin.
This claim is for the loss of a consignment of whisky stored in
Messrs. Hoskyn’s warehouse at Iloilo, and destroyed by fire at the
time of the bombardment of that town by the United States forces.
The arguments advanced above in favor of the assignment of
compensation ex gratia to Messrs. Hoskyn and
Stevenson apply equally to this case.
Mr. Higgin himself addressed the United States Government on March
21, 1900, submitting his claim, and explained that his delay in
doing so had been caused by the fact that he had expected his claim
to be included in that of Messrs. Hoskyn, and had only just been
informed that no claims on consignments would be admitted by the
United States Government. He inclosed certain documents bearing on
the case.
On September 21, 1900, Mr. Higgin received a letter from the United
States Government forwarding reports from United States officers in
the Philippines respecting his case, and also a copy of a circular
letter from General Otis, when military governor, on the subject of
the claims arising out of the bombardment of Iloilo, in which it is
stated that the claims of foreign subjects must be presented through
the diplomatic channel.
British
Embassy,
Washington
,
December 31,
1902
.