File No. 341.115Am319/286
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Page) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 28, 10.20 a. m.]
5224. Your 3980,1 October 26, 8 p. m. Foreign Office note received to-day which will be forwarded next pouch. Its substance [Page 488] follows: Field’s statement gives misleading impression. Nothing has occurred since the note quoted in my 3376, December 10,1 to change British Government’s idea of enemy ownership in the American Transatlantic ships and their consequent liability to condemnation. They were, however, willing as a matter of grace to reach agreement both with Jensen and with American Transatlantic Company which would obviate prize court proceedings and secure the employment of the ships in a manner acceptable to British Government. They offered terms which were accepted in very short time by Jensen, but not accepted by American Transatlantic Company, though further concessions were extended the latter firm. In view of company’s inability or unwillingness to make acceptable arrangement such as resulted in Jensen case the only alternative was to allow prize court proceedings to continue; hence no foundation exists for the statement that the company has received severer treatment than Jensen. The fact that an arrangement was made with Jensen involves no admission that British Government’s case against company was not well founded, Jensen’s willingness to accept terms offered being evidence the other way.
Field was misinformed in stating that proceedings by which two of the vessels were requisitioned for use were non-suited or dismissed. Real facts are that St. Lucia and Halifax prize courts which ordered requisitions did so before judicial committee of Privy Council decided Zamora case, and such requisitions did not strictly comply with conditions subsequently prescribed by that judgment in the respect that the affidavits only proved the necessity of requisitioning the vessels and did not show that there was a real question to be tried so as to make the immediate release of the vessels improper. After Zamora judgment fresh application to prize court in London to regularize position was decided upon.
To refrain from capturing company’s other ships, as guaranteed in note quoted in my 3376, December 10, was concession showing due consideration to American interests involved and no more could have been conceded in view of facts. The seven free vessels have doubtless earned considerable profits for the company.
The British Government are anxious for a prize court decision in this case whose terms, however, can not be discussed pending the proceedings. Such a decision has been delayed by claimants and not by British Government, for the court order of last July to the company to produce certain documents has not been obeyed in spite of the fact that the company’s representations to the Department show that there could be no objection to their producing them.
The undertaking not to capture the company’s remaining ships as quoted in my 3376, December 10, was conditioned upon prize court proceedings not being unduly prolonged by the company. If the company continues to decline to produce these documents, the proceedings will be unduly prolonged and the British Government will be free to take steps in the matter inasmuch as they will be released from their undertaking.