File No. 800.115/2180

The Consul General at London (Skinner) to the Secretary of State

No. 209]

Sir: Referring to the Department’s instruction No. 84 dated December 16, 1914,1 stating that the British order in council of October 29 should not apply to shipments of copper and meats made prior to the promulgation of the order mentioned, I have the honor to remark that the legal position in these cases does not seem to affect British action in any respect. I do not know whether the point is discussed in the Department’s note to the British Government, which is not being commented upon very extensively, but, if it has not been, it seems to me that particular efforts should be made to obtain an explanation from this Government respecting its attitude towards paragraph 43 of the Declaration of London.

I find everywhere in American comment on these matters that the British Government is deemed not bound by the terms of the Declaration of London. While no doubt this is true in a sense, nevertheless the British Government has publicly, and on many occasions, proclaimed its adherence to the Declaration of London, except as to certain modifications, none of which apply to paragraph 43. Paragraph 43 specifically exempts goods shipped, while unaware of the outbreak of hostilities, other than contraband, from liability to condemnation, or to the costs and expenses referred to in Article 41. Notwithstanding these very plain prescriptions, hundreds of consignments brought into London at the beginning of the war are still in the hands of the prize court, and it seems to be impossible to obtain decisions without producing proofs of American ownership of a most convincing character.

At the present time I am dealing, among many other cases, with lumber consigned by George W. Howe and Company of Pensacola, to J. H. Müller and Son of Hamburg. It is known in the lumber trade throughout the world that the Hamburg concern is a consignment house with large warehouses in which auction sales take place at intervals. The habit of this house is to make advances on consignments, the ownership of which vests in the consignor throughout the proceedings. Messrs. Müller and Son honored the drafts of George W. Howe and Company to the extent of 65 per cent of the value of the goods, and in the usual way, the amount being $1,254.71. As Müller and Son could not get the goods, and as the American concern had a credit at Hamburg of $814.71, the Hamburg concern simply took over this amount, and then drew for the balance of $430. In other words, the Hamburg concern has no interest whatever in the consignment under existing circumstances. Nevertheless, the procurator general intends to press this case in the prize court because Messrs. George W. Howe and Company’s original draft on account was paid, the British contention being that ownership has passed into German hands. It is apparently the intention of the authorities, as revealed by their actual conduct, to weigh with minute care every element of ownership, and although I have repeatedly, [Page 382] and from the very beginning, claimed that non-contraband goods shipped before the war were not subject to seizure, I have been unable to obtain any practical recognition of the principles which the British Government itself publicly declares to be its guides in these matters.

I have [etc.]

Robert P. Skinner
  1. Ante, p. 366.