Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay.
London, February 10, 1900.
Sir: I have the honor to report that since my dispatch No. 246, of the 7th instant, I have received, on the evening of February 8, from Lord Salisbury, one note dated February 6 (copy annexed), upon receipt of which 1 sent you cable of the 8th instant, and another note, dated February 9 (copy annexed), on receipt of which I sent you cable dated yesterday.
I think there is a feeling of doubt at the foreign office whether the documents furnished to them by us are clear evidence of property in American citizens at the date of seizure; whether upon shipment of the goods they did not become the property of the consignees—this as to the invoices of W. H. Crossman & Co., Flint, Eddy & Co., Geldart, and the Pennsylvania Milling Company. In the first three cases I have furnished them all the papers which I have received. In the case of the Pennsylvania Milling Company the documents covered by your instruction No. 268, of January 26, I have not yet delivered to them, for the reason stated in my last dispatch; but they are not calculated to remove the doubt. The invoices show the foods on the Beatrice to have been shipped “for and on account of Messrs. Triesman & Shapiro and Broudie & Marks;” drafts on Messrs. Hyman & Co., Delagoa Bay, and on the Bank of Africa, Limited; the goods on the Maria to have been shipped “for and on account of H. Oldfield & Co. and Triesman & Shapiro;” drafts on James Lawrence & Co., Johannesburg and the same bank; and those on the Mashona to have been [Page 587] shipped for and on account of “Broudie & Marks;” drafts on same bank; and the bills of lading are in all cases to order. The affidavits of the President Toomy in each case are quite consistent with ownership in the consignees, who are legitimate flour merchants in Johannesburg, and indicate an actual sale to them in each case; that the price had been drawn for; that the interest of the company is a possible recourse against it in case of the drafts being unpaid, or redress demanded by the purchasers in South Africa for any cause, and that he is unaware whether such drafts have been paid or not.
It was in anticipation of these questions arising on the question of ownership that I made the suggestion contained in my cable of January 12.
Suppose the legal title to be in the consignees, residents of Johannesburg, at the time of the seizure, I assume that you do not mean to present in any way, directly or indirectly, their claims; but in that case are we to claim redress at the hands of the British Government for indirect loss sustained by the American shippers growing out of a sale on credit to citizens of the Transvaal? Of course if the title still remained in the shippers at the time of the seizure, it is all right.
I have, etc.,