The Department of State, it is understood, informs the American shipper that the embassy has cabled that the goods have been placed in the prize court. In a great many instances the shipper telegraphs or writes direct to the embassy requesting it to arrange for the release of their goods. The embassy understands that, inasmuch as prize-court proceedings are to take place, no diplomatic representations will be received by the British Government in connection with these goods, unless such representations are pursuant to special instructions of the Government at Washington. In almost all cases where such representations are made to the foreign office under instructions from the department, the foreign office replies that the procurator general finds that it is impossible to comply with the request for release, and that the claimants must communicate with the procurator general's office, where, if satisfactory proof is produced the goods will be released; or, if the proofs appear to be unsatisfactory, the goods will be held until the sitting of the prize court, which will then pass its judgment on the goods. As the procurator general's office will receive no official communication from the embassy in matters of this kind, the shipper must either transmit his evidence direct or employ his agents or a solicitor in London. The larger American shippers usually have an office or an agent in London who understands prize-court proceedings and is capable of appearing at the procurator general's office in support of the claim for the release of the goods. The smaller shippers who have no office in London are in this way placed at a disadvantage. In view of the fact that the consul general is in the practice of communicating directly with the procurator general's office in regard to all claims of American citizens, I respectfully suggest that the department advise the shipper to send the necessary papers to him direct, unless the department wishes further diplomatic representations to be made. In all cases where the shipper writes direct to the embassy, and it is found that communication with the foreign office would be of no avail, I shall advise the shipper to address himself directly to the consul general, and shall send him a list of the documents which he should transmit with his letter. I also feel that the American exporter should be informed as to the exact status of prize courts in international relations, and of the position of goods actually in the prize court, and that the British Government will receive no diplomatic representations in these cases except under instructions from the Government in view of special circumstances involved. The procurator general's office has advised me informally that the documents which should be submitted to it in support of claims for the release of goods are as follows: The originals of 1. Bills of ladings. 2. Invoices. 3. All previous correspondence with firms in the country to which the goods are shipped. 4. Contracts. 5. Insurance policies. 6. An affidavit setting forth all facts of the case. I feel sure that this procedure will be the quickest and easiest way of disposing to the satisfaction of the shipper such cases as the British Government will not release from the prize court on diplomatic representations, or where goods are in the prize court and no diplomatic representations are in order. I have, etc., WALTER HINES PAGE. CONSUL GENERAL SKINNER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. No. 1248] AMERICAN CONSULATE GENERAL, SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith copy of a letter received from the American consular agent at Kirkwall setting forth the routine practice of the British authorities on the arrival of vessels diverted to that port by the Admiralty. I have, etc., R. P. SKINNER. [Inclosure.] CONSULAR AGENT FLETT TO CONSUL LATHAM. KIRKWALL, February 14, 1916. SIR: I find I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 7th instant: So soon as a vessel from an American or other port arrives here she is boarded by an Admiralty officer, who examines the ship's papers and also the crew. She is also boarded by the customs officials, who examine the ship's papers and search the ship in the ordinary way; The whole ship's papers are removed by the customs officials and brought ashore with them and retained in the customs office here. The papers are then examined by the indoor staff of the customs here and all particulars relating to ship and cargo are telegraphed to London. The papers are retained by the customs until they receive instructions whether the vessel is to be allowed to proceed or whether the whole cargo or part thereof is to be placed in the prize court. If the vessel is allowed to proceed, the ship's papers are then handed over by the customs to the Admiralty port officer, and he either hands them over to the captain personally or sends them on board the vessel. In the event of part or the whole of the cargo being placed into the prize court, the ship's papers are handed by the Admiralty port officer to the prize officer, who is sent on board that vessel to whichever port she might be ordered to discharge. If a vessel is cleared, the customs authorities give the master of the vessel a clearance card to that effect. It is very seldom that a vessel ever breaks bulk here. I have known of a small quantity of cargo that has been prize courted being taken out of a vessel here, so as to allow the vessel to proceed and avoid unnecessary delay and expense in sending her to another port to discharge. It is, however, very seldom that this happens. If I have not made myself sufficiently clear, I shall be very pleased on hearing from you to give you further information on any points that you may wish further information. I am, etc., JAMES FLETT, Consular Agent. On the 16th of March our Government communicated with the American ambassador at London on the matter of detention of goods, and inclosed a communication of the Secretary of State to the William Amer Co. of a week before. THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE TO AMBASSADOR W. H. PAGE. No. 3374] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 16, 1916. SIR: The department is in receipt of your No. 3093, of February 19, 1916, reporting facts which have presented themselves with reference to goods belonging to American citizens which have been detained by the British authorities and placed in the prize court. In this relation there is inclosed herewith for your information a copy of the letter sent by the department to the William Amer Co., under date of March 9, 1916. With a view to having the consul general render such assistance as may be possible and proper in an endeavor to bring about the release of goods which have been seized by the British authorities, the department has addressed similar communications to other American shippers who have complained respecting the seizure of goods shipped by them to European ports. I am, etc., The communication follows: FRANK L. POLK. [Inclosure.] THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE WILLIAM AMER CO. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 9, 1916. GENTLEMEN: The department has received your letter of March 1, 1916, in regard to the seizure by the British authorities of a quantity of glazed kid shipped by you to Sweden on the steamship Alexandria. The department incloses for your information a print containing an order in council issued by the British Government March 11, 1915, regarding the stopping of goods shipped to or from Germany. This order, which is at present the subject of diplomatic discussion between the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain, shows the action which the British Government declare their intention to take in the matter of stopping goods which they desire to have taken by interested persons to obtain the restoration of their goods or payment therefor. The American consul general has informed the department that if shippers will communicate with him directly regarding shipments which have been detained under this order in council he will ascertain the status of the goods, and, when possible, endeavor to effect their release. The consul general states that, even though goods may be classified as contraband, the procurator general will consider evidence indicating innocent ultimate destination of such goods, and has advised him (the consul general) to obtain, wherever possible, original correspondence with buyers or consignors. The consul general further states that when claims for goods are submitted through the consulate general there is always hope that the release of the property will follow without formal proceedings or expense, and that if such release is not brought about the papers in any given case in which prize-court proceedings may be instituted may be turned over to British solicitors. The consul general points out that in all cases it is futile to forward requests for release of goods unsupported by documentary history showing the ownership and destination of the consignment which it is sought to have released. The procurator general has suggested that the papers which should be presented are the originals of invoices, contracts, insurance policies, bills of lading, all correspondence with concerns in the country to which the goods are shipped, and an affidavit setting forth the facts in a given case. As has just been stated, the order in council regarding the stopping of goods shipped to or from Germany is at present the subject of diplomatic discussion between the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain. And neither anything contained in this letter nor any action of the consul general in connection with his efforts to bring about the release of goods which have been detained should be construed as an admission on the part of the Government of the United States of the legality of the action taken by the British Government under this order. It is suggested that you might deem it advisable to communicate directly with the consul general regarding the shipment referred to in your letter. On the other hand, if these goods have been sent to the prize court, it may be well for you to take prompt steps to establish your rights before the court. The department can not undertake to assist private persons in the conduct of proceedings before the court. Should you desire to consult private counsel in England regarding this matter, the American consul general at London will doubtless be able to furnish you on your request with the names of a number of reputable attorneys, one of whom may be employed in the matter. It should be stated in this connection, however, that obviously neither the consul general nor the department can be responsible for the integrity or ability of any lawyer who may be employed as a result of the information furnished by the consul general. I am, etc., ALVEY A. ADEE, Six months after our "ineffectual, illegal, and indefensible" blockade note the British Government replied as follows. Our note was of date October 21: No. 107.] THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, April 24, 1916. SIR: I have the honor, in obedience to instructions received from Sir Edward Grey, His Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, to transmit to you herewith a memorandum embodying the reply to the representations of your Government in regard to restrictions on trade, which were communicated to Sir Edward Grey in Mr. Page's note of November 5 last, in pursuance to your instructions dated October 21. I have, etc., CECIL SPRING-RICE. [Inclosure.] MEMORANDUM. The communication addressed by the United States ambassador in London to Sir E. Grey on the 5th of November, 1915, has received the careful attention of His Majesty's Government, in consultation with their allies, the French Government, and His Majesty's Government have now the honor to make the following reply: 2. The first section (pars. 3-15) of the United States note relates to cargoes detained by the British authorities in order to prevent them from reaching an enemy destination, and the complaint of the United States Government is summarized in paragraph 33 to the effect that the methods sought to be employed by Great Britain to obtain and use evidence of enemy destination of cargoes bound for neutral ports and to impose a contraband character upon such cargoes are without justification. 3. The wording of this summary suggests that the basis of the complaint of the United States Government is not so much that the shipments intercepted by the naval forces were really intended for use in the neutral countries to which they were dispatched, as that the dispatch of goods to the enemy countries has been frustrated by methods which have not been employed by belligerent nations in the past. It would seem to be a fair reply to such a contention that new devices for dispatching goods to the enemy must be met by new methods of applying the fundamental and acknowledged principle of the right to intercept such trade. 4. The question whether the exercise of the right of search can be restricted to search at sea was dealt with in Sir E. Grey's note of the 7th of January, 1915, and His Majesty's Government would again draw attention to the facts that information has constantly reached them of attempts to conceal contraband intended for the enemy in innocent packages, and that these attempts can only be frustrated by examination of the ship and cargo in port. Similarly, in Sir E. Grey's note of the 10th of February, 1915, it was pointed out that the size of modern steamships, and their capacity to navigate the waters where the allied patrols have to operate, whatever the conditions of the weather, frequently render it a matter of extreme danger, if not of impossibility, even to board the vessels unless they are taken into calm water for the purpose. It is unnecessary to repeat what was said in that note. There is nothing that His Majesty's Government could withdraw or that the experience of the officers of the allied fleets has tended to show was inaccurate. 5. When visit and search at sea are possible, and when a search can be made there which is sufficient to secure belligerent rights, it may be admitted that it would be an unreasonable hardship on merchant vessels to compel them to come into port, and it may well be believed that maritime nations have hesitated to modify the instructions to their naval officers that it is at sea that these operations should be carried out, and that undue deviation of the vessel from her course must be avoided. That, however, does not affect the fact that it 84610°-H. Doc. 2111, 64–2, pt 2—12 |