The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-11

If Washington dispatches are correct the
flour by British warships has been practic-
ally settled on basis that should be salts
factory to all parties. On the American
side the real party in interest was the
owner of the seized goods. AS the goods
were on a British ship, there was no insult
to the American flag to demand reparation
for, the essential question being the prop
erty interest of the owners of the -four.
The question of the right of search and as
to what constitutes contraband of war was
incidentally involved, but not to extent
requiring immediate settlement, as far as
the United States is concerned.
In reply to the protest of the United
States, the British government has. it is
said, offered to settle on the following
basis:
First-Great Britain offers to pay an in
demnity to the American citizens whose
corn meal and flour were seized by the
British cruisers near Delagoa bay, the ex-
tent of the claims to be determined by a
commission.
Second-Great Britain will not declare
corn meal and flour to be contraband of
foodstuffs are intended 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 right to seize
food supplies absolutely necessary for
maintenance OF her soldiers and sailors in
time of war, her right being subject to the
law OF indemnity.
The United States, it is said, accepts all
of these propositions. with the understand
ing that the offer to pay for the flour
seized in this case is equivalent to an adj
mission that it was not contraband, though
it might be If consigned to the enemy or
their agents. AS the proposed payment to
the American owners of the flour will in
clude costs, charges and possible profits.
the proposition ought to be entirely salts
factory to them. The second proposition
relieves Great Britain from the dilemma of
declaring all foodstuffs contraband, a posi-
ton which, in view of possible future wars,
leaves her free to hold contraband food
stuffs consigned to or intended for the
enemy. This is q fair contention, and one
to which the United States itself is COM
mitted. The most interesting feature of
the proposition is the paragraph which
eral principles, to 'seze food supplies alb
solutely necessary for the maintenance of
soldiers and sailors in time of war, such
right being subject to the law of indem-
nifty" This is almost equivalent to an adj
mission that Great Britain is unable to
supply her army and navy with bread
stuffs, and that the recent seizure was
made under the stress of necessity and
with the expectation of paying an indem-
nifty. 1t goes even further, for it asserts,
as a general principle, that a belligerent
may seize breadstuffs, without reference to
their ownership, for her army and navy,
subject to the law of indemnity. AS
general principle of international law this
is new contention. 1t may be defensible
on the ground of self-preservation, and
that a nation at war may take possession
of food wherever it is found, subject to the
this ground, but the United States reserves
the point by admitting the contention as a
good defense in the present case without
admitting the general principle. AS Great
Britains proposition furnishes a satisfac-
tory basis of settlement in the present case
it is not worth while to borrow trouble
concerning future ones. The American
owners of the seized goods may be put to
a little delay, but in the end they will prob
ably receive considerably more for their
goods than they would if they had reached
their destination.