[Inclosure.]
Arkell &
Douglas to Mr. Hay.
New
York, January 5,
1900.
Dear Sir: We beg to advise that we shipped
from New York, through the agents of the American and African Line
and the agents of the Union Clan Line, Messrs. Norton & Son and
Messrs. Barber & Co., respectively, various lines of goods for
the
[Page 592]
port of Lourenco
Marquez, Delagoa Bay, on the steamships Maria,
Beatrice, and Mashona.
The lines named are English lines and the steamers named were English
steamers. They were going to the port of Delagoa Bay, which is a
neutral port. No intimation was given to us by either agent that it
was not perfectly in order to make these shipments, and bills of
lading were issued accordingly.
We received these orders from firms in South Africa to whom we have
been shipping for many years, and most of the cargo was ordered by
British subjects; in fact, probably all of the cargo, except in one
or two cases, and in those cases the parties were regular importers
and had been for a long time.
We attach herewith a copy of the bill of lading,1 representing each shipment
made by us. The shipment embraces all classes of general
cargo—kerosene oil, brooms, stoves, building material, white meal,
shovels, turpentine, lard oil, plows, shellers, flour, etc. So far
as our knowledge goes, there is nothing contraband of war in the
shipments, nor do we understand or believe that any of these goods
were imported with the intention of shipment from Delagoa Bay to the
Transvaal now that a condition of war exists.
The British Government, we understand, have landed the cargo ex
steamship Maria at the port of Cape Town, the
cargo ex steamship Beatrice at the port of
East London, and the cargo ex steamship Mashona at the port of Port Natal. The various houses to
whom we have shipped, so far as we know, have no branch houses or
affiliations at these ports, and as we have a large amount involved,
having paid for and purchased these goods in good faith and shipped
them, we desire to put in a strong protest against the action of the
British Government in diverting this cargo from its proper
destination, and to claim such compensation and damages as may be
right and proper.
We have failed to get any proper explanation or guaranty of redress
from the agents of the English lines who carried this cargo. The
value of the cargo, with the prepaid freight, will amount to some
£3,000, and there is besides unknown amount of charges, expenses,
etc., which will now be placed on the cargo; also the question of
damage to cargo, which is a serious point, especially in the case of
goods which are more or less liable to injury through storage.
We have no way of knowing as to what disposal has been made of these
goods, whether they are stored in public warehouses, covered by
insurance, whether the consignees have been notified that they can
obtain delivery at the ports of discharge, or any other facts.
We trust that you will see from the above statements that our
position is a most unsatisfactory one, and that it does not appear
to our minds that the British Government were within their rights in
making these practical seizures of our cargo.
We hope you will kindly let us know what steps are being taken, and
will be taken, to protect us in this matter, and we remain,
Respectfully, yours,
