Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay.
London, February 26, 1900.
Sir: I have the honor to report that after my dispatch No. 262, of February 24, and on the same day, I had an interview with Lord Salisbury on the subject of the seizure of the Sabine, of which I sent you a concise account the same day by cable.
I stated to him the substance of your cable instructions to me, received on the 22d instant, but the vessel had already been released; and although it was suggested that a part of her cargo was contraband, her detention was not based upon that ground. The real reason of it was a supposed violation of the British municipal law, which prohibits “trading with the enemy.” There was, therefore, no reason to discuss the matter on the contraband ground. To what was stated in my cable, I have to [Page 596] add that Lord Salisbury suggested that an ultimate destination to citizens of the Transvaal, even of goods consigned to British ports on the way thither, might, if the transportation were viewed as one “continuous voyage,” be held to constitute, in a British vessel, such a “trading with the enemy” as to bring the vessel within the provisions of the municipal law. He added that, although their general purpose was to prevent British vessels over which they had control from engaging during the war in carrying goods destined for the enemy’s territory, his Government did not feel disposed to press that point in this instance.
I represented to him that the indirect injury to American trade by such seizures was very great—far greater than the value of goods actually seized or detained—inasmuch as there had long been established between American ports and South Africa a regular course of trade, which ought not to be interrupted. In view of this I ventured to express the hope that there would be no more such seizures, a hope with which I think he sympathized, for they appear to have given as much trouble to the British Government as to ours.
I have, etc.,