Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1900-01-20
SaliSbury'S Reply to
the United States

New York, Jan. 1O.--A special to the
Journal and Advertiser froin Washing
ton says:
The essential points in tile tentative
answer of Lord Salisbury Ito the de.
mand made on him by Ambassador
Choate for declaration ofipolicy and
a concession of liability in the matter
of the seizures of American -four Ia
cargoes on the Mashoni. the Beatrice
and the Maria arc:
First, Great Britain offers to pay an
indemnity to the American citizen
whose corn, meal and -four were seized
by the British cruisers near Delagoa
Bay, the extent of the claims to be de-
termined by commission.
Second, Great Britain will not de-
clare corn, meal and -four to he con-
traband when proof is not positive that
the foodstuffs are intenced for The
camp of the enemy.
Third. Great Britain contends that
she has not violated the rights of a
neutral power by the seizure of this
corn, meal and -four, but that. on the
contrary, under her old common law,
she has a right to seize food supplies
absolutely necessary for the mainren-
ance of her soldiers and sailors in time
of war, her right being subject to the
equities of indemnity.
The attitude of this Government on
the three propositions submitted in
justification by Lord Salisbury Is as
follows:
The United States accepts Great
Britain's offer to pay American citizens
in interest the face value of the cur
goes, with reasonable profit Great
Britain's plea in justification is re-
garded as inadequate and evasivc in
that 1t avoids a general declaration as
to whether corn, meal and flour are
contraband of war, but the answer is
reasonably sufficient because it de-
clares specifically that the Articles on
the vessels named were not contra
band of war as they were not destined
for the camp of the enemy land that
was one important contention Of the
State Department.
AS to the third proposition. the
United States accepts in good faith the
plea that the goods were seized as a
military necessity for the supply of the
British army and navy and that such
necessity justified the act of seizure
without prejudice to any other inter-
national questions involved
A high State Department official
Great Britain's inability to supply her
army and navy actually engaged in the
Boer war could be demonstrated. That
condition, he said, is fairly inferable
from the fact of the immense army in
the field, the consequent emergency
drain on the home base of supplies, the
distance of the local South African
bases of supply from the armies in the
field, the danger in the transportation
of them, great distances in land and
the practically isolated position of her
cruisers off Delagoa Bay beyond the
international limit from shore.
The United States, he said, had
agreed to this contention of Great Brit
ain because It was defensible by inter-
national law and by the facts as sub
mitted.
The State Department notwithstand-
ing this tentative reply, which pre-
cludes any chance of serious friction,
is still anxious to obtain specific
declaration as to whether Great Brit
ain will maintain the general PROPOSE
ton that flour, corn and meal are con-
traband Of war. 1t is probable in view
Of the fact present amicable adjust
ment that the United States will not
insist on an immediate reply to her
demands for comprehensive declara-
ton of policy.
1t is thought, however, that mas
much as Germany, Holland and France
have asked Great Britain for defini-
ton of contraband as applied to food
stuffs, the scope Of the answer to the
United States maye be enlarged in the
near future.