File No. 300.115/978
No. 85]
The procurator general and the committee observe that they have acted
throughout on the principle of doing what is equitable and
reasonable independently of strict legal considerations, and they
thought I would not deny that they had dealt with these difficult
and numerous cases in a spirit of fairness and even generosity. It
is true that the authorities here have released all American goods
when shown that the ownership vested certainly or probably in
[Page 327]
American firms, but in
every case the release was conditional upon payment of any freight
“which may be due,” and other charges. If the Department’s opinion
that innocent goods which left the United States prior to the war
are not properly subject to prize proceedings is correct under
international law, the subsequent release of such goods can scarcely
be described as an act of generosity, and constitutes merely a
recognition of the soundness of the Department’s position; and if
that be so, it is difficult to comprehend upon what ground, the
payment of freight is demanded upon goods landed at a port where
their presence is not desired, and under conditions which inevitably
subject the owners to heavy losses and expenses.
I am advising shippers whose goods are being released, to accept the
proffered terms under protest and with a view to obtaining
reimbursement should the Department find it possible to come to an
agreement with the British Government on this matter.
[Enclosure]
The British Procurator General (Dennis) to the American Consul General at London
(Skinner)
Treasury, Whitehall, S. W.,
October 6,
1914.
Sir: Your letter of the 23d ultimo and
two letters of the 29th ultimo, relating to the payment of
freight and charges incurred in connection with American cargoes
on enemy ships which sailed before the war have been laid before
the committee which is dealing on behalf of the Government with
the release of cargoes on enemy ships.
The committee observe that you refer in your first letter to the
opinion of the Secretary of State of the United States, and that
in one of your later letters you state that the course proposed
in a certain case “will not be acceptable to the American
Government,” and they desire that I should point out, as I had
already done both in correspondence and orally, that the views
of the Government of the United States should be put forward to
the Foreign Office through the proper diplomatic channel, namely
the American Embassy.
The committee however propose to treat your references to the
views of the American Government merely as an expression of the
views which you desire to put forward for their consideration on
behalf of individual American firms who may be interested in
these cargoes.
Referring first to your letter of the 23d ultimo, it seems to the
committee that the third paragraph of that letter does not
adequately describe the nature of the cases which have come
before them. Some of the cases involved do no doubt fall within
the description of American cargoes and had they been brought
before the prize court would probably have been released.
In the majority of the cases, however, the property has either
clearly, or probably, passed to enemy consignees and would have
been condemned in the prize court either to confiscation or to
detention during the period of the war; in most of these cases
it appears that the American shippers retain their legal remedy
for the purchase money against the German consignees, and in
some cases it is not clear that bills may not have been actually
accepted by the latter.
The committee and the procurator general have acted throughout on
the principle of doing what is equitable and reasonable
independently of strictly legal considerations, and I think that
you will not deny that they have dealt” with these difficult and
numerous cases in a spirit of fairness and even of generosity;
the American claimants have so far shown their willingness to
reciprocate by agreeing to such conditions as may have been
thought reasonable, without considering strict legal rights, and
the payment of freight and charges is certainly as a rule a
condition which the committee and the procurator general
consider to be fair and reasonable nor has objection been
hitherto taken to such payment (except in one or two cases).
[Page 328]
I should mention that a claim has been put in by an American
company to a proportion of the freight on the ship Kronprinzessin Cecilie.
The committee and the procurator general, while they are not able
to make any general statement applicable to all cases, will take
into consideration any representations on the subject of freight
or charges that may be made in particular cases.
They would however regret if they should find themselves hampered
in dealing with these cases by what appear to them to be
unreasonable contentions on the part of those interested in the
cargoes as they might then be reluctantly compelled to adopt a
stricter attitude.
As regards the particular case of the wood alcohol to which you
refer observe that you may expect a further communication from
Messrs. Grey and Company,
and I think that before dealing with it I should know whether
any and what other claim is to be made by the owners in order
that the matter may be dealt with as a whole.
I have informed the committee of your offer to see them on the
subject and they desire me to thank you for it but to say that
after reading your letters they feel that they are in full
possession of your views and that it is not necessary to put you
to the trouble of attending before them.
I am [etc.]
A. H. Dennis
