File No. 763.72112/567½
The Consul General at London (Skinner) to the Secretary of State
No. 215]
London,
January 1, 1915.
[Received January 12.]
Sir: Referring to the Department’s cabled
instruction of September 222 stating that it did not consider the
British Government to be entitled to collect freight on cargo on
diverted, detained, or seized vessels sailing before the war, and
subsequent correspondence dealing with the same point, I have the
honor to enclose herewith a copy of a note received from the Foreign
Office, through the Ambassador, in reply to my representations. I
shall be greatly interested in the Department’s opinion respecting
the contents of this note.
The Foreign Office states that payment of freight will be required in
all cases in which the cargo released “would have been condemned
either to confiscation or to detention if it had been taken into the
prize court, but in which the neutral shipper asks for its release
to him.”
I do not quite perceive how the authorities are able to determine in
advance that a given consignment would have been condemned had the
matter gone to the prize court, and in any case, I do not understand
how the Foreign Office can waive to one side the Department’s
reiterated contention that goods that cleared before the war are not
subject to condemnation from any point of view.
I have [etc.]
[Page 305]
[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Grey) to
the American Ambassador (Page)
No. 85880]
London,
December 23, 1914.
Your Excellency: In recent letters to
His Majesty’s procurator general and the Board of Trade the
United States Consul General has raised the question of the
payment of freight and charges incurred in connection with the
release of cargoes shipped before the war by United States
shippers, and in my note of 28th ultimo I had the honour to
inform your excellency, with reference to your note of the 10th
ultimo, that I hoped shortly to be able to communicate the views
of His Majesty’s Government on the matter.
I have now the honour to state, for your excellency’s information
and for that of the United States Consul General, that, as
regards freight in the case of cargoes on enemy vessels, it is
the decision of His Majesty’s Government that freight will only
be charged on such cargoes when it has been earned, i. e., when
the cargo concerned has been brought to its original
destination, save in the cases mentioned subsequently in this
note. Neutral shippers to whom cargo is released will not
therefore (save in the cases subsequently mentioned) be required
to pay freight, unless the voyage of the vessel carrying the
cargo is complete, or the contract of affreightment provides for
pro rata freight.
The cases in which payment of freight will be required in any
event, are those in which the cargo released would have been
condemned either to confiscation or to detention if it had been
taken into the prize court, but in which the neutral shipper
asks for its release to him; and in these cases His Majesty’s
Government consider that payment of freight is a proper
condition of release as an alternative to condemnation of the
cargo by the prize court.
The above observations apply both in the case of cargoes on ships
liable to confiscation and in that of cargoes on ships liable to
detention only.
As regards the question of expenses in connection with the
release of cargo, His Majesty’s Government consider that
expenses reasonably incurred in respect of the care, custody, or
sale of the property concerned, or otherwise incidental to the
matter, can properly be charged as a condition of the release of
the cargo, in accordance with the established practice of prize
courts, and they will therefore continue to require the payment
of such expenses as a condition of release.
I have [etc.]
For
Sir Edward Grey
:
W. Langley
