441.11C881/6
The Chargé in Great Britain (Wright) to the Secretary of
State
[Extract]
London, September 17,
1920.
[Received September 28.]
No. 3441
Sir: With reference to the Department’s
instruction No. 646 of March 23, 1920 (File No. So 441.11 C 881),
and to subsequent correspondence
[Page 644]
concerning the release of American owned goods
detained by the British authorities during the war, I have the honor
to transmit herewith, for the information of the Department, a copy
of the Note, No. T 9938/115/350 of September 15, 1920, received from
the Foreign Office, and upon which my telegram No. 1398 of September
16, 5 p.m. was based.51
[Here follows summary of note printed as enclosure hereto.]
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Curzon) to the
American Chargé (Wright)
London, September 15,
1920.
No. T 9938/115/350
Sir: I had the honour to receive the
United States Ambassador’s note of April 15th last (No. 252)
relative to goods detained under the Order-in-Council of March
11th, 1915. In that note His Excellency refers to the claim of
the Crucible Steel Company of America in the case of a
consignment of steel seized on the British S.S. Den of Airlie, and asks whether it is the
intention of His Majesty’s Government to refuse the release of
goods seized under the Order-in-Council where they may be
considered enemy owned under Prize Law, while at the same time
under municipal law they are American property.
- 2.
- So far as regards the consignment seized on the S.S. Den of Airlie, I would observe that
these goods did not come within the scope of the
Order-in-Council of March 11th, 1915, but were condemned by
the Prize Court as enemy property seized on board a British
vessel, in accordance with the ordinary prescriptions
applicable to such cases. No question therefore arose in
this connection of the application of the Order-in-Council
of March 11th, 1915.
- 3.
- His Majesty’s Government have however given their most
careful consideration to the views expressed by the United
States Government as to the treatment of goods detained
under the Order-in-Council which might under a strict
interpretation of law be held to be enemy property and I
have now the honour to inform you that in a series of test
cases arising out of consignments seized in the S.S. United States which were recently
brought before the Prize Court, the Attorney-General,
speaking on behalf of the Crown, intimated that, whatever
might be its legal rights in the matter, the Crown did not
press for the application of the rules of international law
in deciding whether the goods were enemy property within the
meaning of the Order-in-Council, but was content to
[Page 645]
accept the test of
ordinary commercial law. The cases were accordingly dealt
with by the Court on this footing and decrees made for the
release of the goods or the proceeds of their sale.
- 4.
- It is proposed to deal with the remaining cases of goods
detained under the Order-in-Council upon the same basis, and
where His Majesty’s Procurator-General is satisfied that by
commercial law the property had become American at the time
of seizure, and that no claim can be made upon His Majesty’s
Government by any other claimant, he will be prepared to
file consents to orders for release upon the same terms as
in the case above mentioned. In cases in which there is an
element of doubt or the amount involved is considerable, or
where other reasons exist which lead the Procurator-General
to consider that the interests of the Crown require it, it
is proposed to refer the claimants to the Prize Court for
such order as it may deem just to make in all the
circumstances of the case.
- 5.
- These concessions are made by His Majesty’s Government
upon the assumption that they will be accepted as a
settlement of all questions which have arisen with regard to
the Order-in-Council in question, and must not be taken as
implying any doubt or admission whatever with regard to its
validity.
I have [etc.]
(For the Secretary of State)
Eric Phipps
