Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1920, Volume II

300.115/20654

The Consul General at London (Skinner) to the Acting Secretary of State

London, March 2, 1920.
[Received March 13.]

No. 9272

Sir: I have the honor to refer to my telegram of the 28th. ultimo,⁴³ in reply to the Department’s cabled enquiry of February 2, 1920, asking whether instructions had yet been received from the President of the Prize Court applicable to American claims, and to enclose herewith the complete text of the President’s answer, in confirmation of the cabled abstract.

I am somewhat fearful that the optimistic hope of the President of the Prize Court that the Procurator General will be able by exchanging views with claimants, to dispose of the bulk of the outstanding cases without any hearing in Court, will prove illusory. The Procurator General, up to now, has clung tenaciously to every shadow of justification for the detention of goods, or their proceeds.

The Department will note that the arrangements described in the letter from the President of the Prize Court contemplate that release shall be operated “except in cases where the Court has made a declaration that the goods are enemy owned”.

The Procurator General, thus far, has ignored the statement of Viscount Grey on March 15, 1915,⁴⁴ to the American Government that “they restrict their claim to stoppage of cargoes destined for or coming from enemy territory” and holds that seized goods, or their proceeds if “enemy owned” according to the law of Prize (or so pronounced by the Prize Court) are not releasable although they may be neutral property according to municipal law.

He is asking for a decision from the Prize Court in “selected test cases” involving particularly the claims of the American Bead Company, C. Bruno and Company, and others, cases which formed the subject of a Prize Court judgment on December 19 [18], 1916.

I am enclosing a copy of this judgment⁴⁵ from which it will be seen that the late President of the Prize Court considered that “the passing of property shipped on the seas during war is regarded by the International Law from a wholly different standpoint from that adopted by that law or by the Municipal Law in time of peace”, and he reached the conclusion that “the goods were enemy property as well as of enemy origin”.

It is my understanding that the goods of the American Bead Company, and of practically every other American claimant in the same circumstances are American goods according to municipal law, and consequently, there really should be no delay, or Prize Court proceedings, in bringing about their release.

In view of Lord Curzon’s note to the Department on this matter,⁴⁶ and the liberal frame of mind of the President of the Prize Court, himself, it does not seem to me at all necessary that the Procurator General should insist upon going into Court for a further decision as to the meaning of enemy owned goods, and it would seem to me possible that administrative action might result in the release of these goods which are clearly American under municipal law, and which, in any circumstances, would be released on the filing of a bond with the British authorities by which they would be abundantly protected against any subsequent claim.

However, in the circumstances, it seems improbable that the Procurator General will abate any of his requirements unless, of course, as the result of American pressure he should be instructed to do so.

I should like to remark in closing that in the Stigstad case which went to the Privy Council on October 15, 1918, and which grew out of a seizure in 1915 of Swedish iron ore destined for Germany where it would have been converted no doubt into munitions of war, the goods were looked upon as neutral owned, and upon sale in this country, the entire proceeds were paid over at once to the claimants.

It is extremely difficult to reconcile this conduct of the Prize Court authorities, in a case arising during the first critical period of the war, with their much more rigid attitude towards American goods now that the war is over, and notwithstanding their expressed desire that outstanding cases shall be liquidated expeditiously and with the least formality possible.

I have [etc.]

Robert P. Skinner

[Enclosure]

The Secretary to the President of the British Prize Court (Price) to the American Consul General at London (Skinner)

[London,] 27 February, 1920.

Sir: With further reference to your letter of the 10th instant, I am now able to inform you that the President has made enquiry of His Majesty’s Procurator General upon the subject of the release of American owned goods detained under the Order in Council of March 11th 1915 to which your letter relates.

The Procurator General informs the President as follows:—

“The Procurator General is prepared to release without application to the Court all American goods or their proceeds in respect of which a decree of detention has been made by the Prize Court, except in cases where the Court has made a declaration that the goods are enemy owned. In such cases it is considered that any application for release should be made to the Prize Court. It may be that after the President has given a decision upon a few selected test cases other releases may be made without the necessity of applying to the Court. It is of course essential that the documents submitted to the Procurator General in support of applications for release should be complete in every particular.”

You will be aware, the President thinks, that his duty as the Judge having jurisdiction in Prize is to deal judicially with claims in Prize as and when they are brought before him in the usual course of Prize procedure, but as your letter recognises the President regards it as a matter of great importance that all possible despatch shall be used in the decision of outstanding questions relating to property still under the control of the Court.

He hopes that by exchange of views between the Procurator General and the claimants interested in the goods, the bulk of the outstanding cases may be disposed of without the necessity of any hearing in Court. The suggestions of the Procurator General as to the best means of achieving this object will no doubt receive your consideration.

I am to add further that as soon as, and whenever questions of difference between the Procurator General and Claimants or their Representatives are definitely formulated, he will use all means at his disposal to ensure that such questions shall be promptly determined.

Believe me [etc.]

Wilfred Price

43. Not printed.
44. See telegram no. 1798, Mar. 15, 1915, from the Ambassador in Great Britain, Foreign Relations, 1915, supp., p. 143.
45. See ibid., 1916, supp., p. 494, for an extract from the judgment.
46. See telegram no. 3510, Dec. 10, 1919, from the Ambassador in Great Britain, p. 632.