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 441.11C881/6 The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain No. 1103 (Davis) WASHINGTON, December 27, 1920. SIR: Reference is made to your despatch No. 3441 of September 17, 1920, concerning the release of American owned goods detained by the British authorities during the war, with which you enclosed a copy of a note dated September 15, 1920 received from the Foreign Office regarding this matter. In the fifth paragraph of this note it is stated that the concessions made therein by the British Government regarding the British Order-in-Council of March 11, 1915 are made 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. You are requested to inform the Foreign Office that while this Government might be willing to accept the concessions made by the British authorities as a settlement of some of the questions which have arisen with regard to the Order-in-Council of March 11, 1915, it cannot accept these concessions as a settlement of all questions which have arisen or may arise with regard to this Order-in-Council. I am [etc.] For the Acting Secretary of State: 441.11/18 The Secretary of State to President Wilson 52 THE PRESIDENT: The undersigned, the Secretary of State, has the honor to submit herewith a report, with a view to its transmission to the Senate if the President approve thereof, in response to Senate Resolution 438 53 relating to complaints of American citizens growing out of interference with American commerce by British authorities. The Resolution reads as follows: "RESOLVED, That the President is hereby requested, if not incompatible with the public interest, to inform the Senate whether any, and if any, what measures have been taken relating to claims or complaints of citizens of the United States against the British Government growing out of restraints on American commerce and the alleged unlawful seizure and sale of American ships and cargoes by British authorities during the late war, and to communicate to the Senate a copy of any instructions which may have been given by the Executive to the American Ambassador at London on the subject on and after October 21, 1915, and also a copy of any correspondence which may have passed between this Government and that of Great Britain in relation to that subject since that time." In making representations to the British Government regarding the interferences with American commerce, the Government of the United States continued to assert the principles laid down in the note of October 21, 1915, referred to in the Resolution of the Senate. The Department of State endeavored to prevent the improper seizure of vessels and cargoes and to obtain the release of such as were in its opinion improperly detained. Following the entry of the United States into the war, the Department succeeded in having consummated a general plan for the release of certain classes of goods which had not been sent to the Prize Court. It was made clear, however, in connection with negotiations for this arrangement that, although the British Government should agree to effect certain releases, the Government of the United States could not undertake to abandon the attitude taken by it with respect Transmitted to the Senate, Mar. 3, 1921. 6 Of Jan. 26, 1921. "See Department's instruction of Oct. 21, 1915, to the Ambassador in Great Britain, Foreign Relations, 1915, supp., p. 578. to British measures which it regarded as unwarranted, or to withhold protection from American citizens whose rights appeared to have been infringed by such measures. Early in the war the British Government declared their intention to make due compensation to persons whose ships or cargoes were wrongfully detained by British authorities. From communications subsequently received from the British Government it appeared that they took the position that all claims for such compensation should, in the first instance, be submitted to the British Prize Court, and that diplomatic action should be taken in behalf of interested persons only after such local remedies in the courts had been exhausted and a prima facie denial of justice had been shown. The Government of the United States, without asserting that American citizens should not seek remedies in prize courts in cases properly cognizable by such tribunals, made clear its view that complaints of American citizens growing out of interference with their commerce which had formed the basis of remonstrance by this Government were on an entirely different footing than that class of complaints for the redress of which persons, who are themselves, or whose property is, within the jurisdiction of a foreign country, are required under a generally accepted rule of international law to resort to the appropriate tribunals of such country. For obvious reasons claims for compensation were not pressed against the British Government during the war. In a communication dated August 18, 1920,55 inquiry was made if the British Government were prepared to enter into an arrangement for a reciprocal adjustment of claims growing out of acts of American and British authorities incident to the war. No final reply has been received from the British Government to that communication. The language of the Resolution of the Senate is very broad. It is understood, however, that the purpose of it is to obtain information concerning the general character of instructions addressed to the American Embassy at London on the subject of interference with American ships and cargoes during the war and concerning the attitude of the British Government with respect to this subject as disclosed by communications received from them by the Government of the United States. Specific references to particular losses sustained by American citizens have been avoided, since it seems probable that such persons might desire to avoid publicity at this time in relation to these matters. The attached compilation 56 has therefore been 50 Compilation not printed; the most important papers listed are printed supra, and also in Foreign Relations, 1915, supp., p. 578, and in Foreign Relations, 1916, supp., p. 368. limited to certain correspondence which it appears will serve the purposes of the Senate's Resolution. Respectfully submitted, WASHINGTON, March 3, 1921. BAINBRIDGE COLBY CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ARISING OUT OF THE DELAY IN DELIVERING THE "IMPERATOR" AND OTHER EXGERMAN SHIPS;57 PROPOSAL OF THE UNITED STATES FOR CONCURRENT EXAMINATION OF AMERICAN CLAIMS AGAINST GREAT BRITAIN 862.85/1189 The British Ambassador (Geddes) to the Secretary of State No. 436 WASHINGTON, July 15, 1920. SIR: With reference to Mr. Polk's note of December 26th, 1919,58 and to previous correspondence between the State Department and this Embassy on the subject of the delay in delivering the former German vessels to the representatives appointed by His Majesty's Government to receive them, I have the honour, on instructions from my Government, to prefer a claim against the United States Government in respect of (a) cost of crews' wages and subsistence expenses in America, (b) cost of, and time required for reconditioning these vessels. I am instructed to say that, provided the United States Government are prepared to meet the claim now to be presented under these heads, His Majesty's Government on their part are ready to renounce their claim for loss of earnings and other losses. The amount claimed under heading (a) is estimated at some $720,000. This provisional claim will, however, be replaced by a fully certified estimate so soon as all accounts are received. In the meantime I should be glad to be able to inform my Government that the United States Government recognize in principle their liability under the above heads. I have [etc.] 862.85/1189 A. C. GEDDES The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Geddes) WASHINGTON, August 18, 1920. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to refer to your note of July 15, 1920, which has had our careful consideration. You mention therein 67 For correspondence concerning the delay in delivering the Imperator and other ships, see pp. 542 ff. 58 Ante, p. 578. the previous correspondence respecting the delay in delivering certain ex-German vessels to representatives of the British Government and the claim, which you describe as "provisional", against the Government of the United States, "in respect of (a) cost of crews' wages and subsistence expenses in America, and (b) cost of and time required for reconditioning these vessels." I note that the provisional claim will "be replaced by a fully certified estimate so soon as all accounts are received." While this Government is not aware of its liability for the losses to which you refer, it regrets that such losses have occurred, and will be pleased to receive at your convenience a statement of the principle upon which you predicate the liability of this Government in order that appropriate consideration may be given the claim without delay. In this connection I may add that it would seem most logical and appropriate that concurrently with the examination of the above claim to be presented by your Government, a procedure should be adopted for the examination and settlement of claims of this Government against the British Government, arising from numerous detentions of vessels and interrupted voyages which have been the subject of correspondence between the British Government and the Government of the United States. During the period of the neutrality and subsequent belligerency of this Government, it did not seem appropriate to press for an adjustment of claims for losses resulting from such detentions, and I should be pleased to know if His Majesty's Government now desires to initiate suitable proceedings for the mutual adjustment and satisfaction of all such claims.60 Accept [etc.] BAINBRIDGE COLBY EXPLOITATION OF PETROLEUM IN PALESTINE AND MESOPOTAMIA " 61 Representations by the United States on behalf of Existing American Interests in Palestine-San Remo Agreement, April 24, 1920-Exposition by the Government of the United States of Its Views on the Obligations of the British Government as Mandatory to Apply the Principle of Equal Treatment to the Nationals of the United States 467.11 St 25/42 : Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Davis) WASHINGTON, February 4, 1920-4 p.m. 104. American Consul Bagdad states that he requested permission E. S. Sheffield of Standard Oil investigate coal lands Mesopotamia Evidently no reply was ever received; see report of the Secretary of State to the President, Mar. 3, 1921, p. 646. 61 Continued from Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. 11, pp. 250–262. |