Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-01-10
It Was a Necessity for Food for
Army and Navy,
REPLY TO UNITED STATES.
Inability IL Admittedly. S. Admins
tration Chagrlned at Boer Acc
ton Toward Consuls.

The essential points In the tentative
answer OF Lord Salisbury to the de-
mand made on him by Ambassador
Choate for declaration Of policy and
concession Of liability in the matter OF
the seizures OF American flour in car
goes on the Mashona, the Beatrice and
the Maria are:
First Great Britain offers to pay an
indemnity to the American citizens
whose corn. meal and flour were seized
by the British cruiser near Delagoa
bay, the extent OF the claims to be de-
termined by commission,
Second-Great Britain will not declare
corn, meal and flour to be contraband,
when proof is not positive that the
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, on the con-
! trary, under her old common law, she
has right TO seize food supplies abso-
| lutely necessary for the maintenance
| 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 JUS
tiiicaton by Lord Salisbury is as fol-
! lows:
The United States accepts Great
Britain's offer to pay American eit-
| zens In interest the face value Of the
cargoes. with a reasonable profit
Great Britain's plea in justification
| Is regarded as inadequate and eYasive
In that II avoids general declaration
as 10 whether corn, meal or Hour are
| colntraband Of war, but the answer IL
reasonably sufficient because II declares
| specifically that the articles on the YES
sells named were not contraband OF
war as they were not destined for the
| camp Of the enemy, and that was one
| important contention Of the state de-
! partment.
AS TO the third proposition, the United
| States accepts In good faith the plea
| that the goods were seized as military
| necessity for the supply OF the British
| army and navy and that such necessity
necessitated the justice Of such seizure
without prejudice to any other interna-
| tional question involved.
A high state department official said
| that there was no doubt that Great
Britain's inability to supply her army
| and navy actually engaged In the Boer
| war could be demonstrated. That con-
dltion, 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 dis
lance Of the local South African bases
| OF supplies from the armies In the field,
| the danger in the transportation OF
| them, great distances inland, and the
practically isolated position Of her
cruisers off Delagoa bay beyond the in
ternational limit from shore.
The United States, he said, had
agreed to this contention OF Great Brit
ain because II was defensible by inter
national law, by British local law and
by the facts as submitted.
| The state department, notwlthstand-
| ing this tentative reply, which pre-
cludes any chance of serious friction, Is
still anxious TO obtain specific declar-
! alton as 10 whether Great Britain will
! maintain the general proposition that
| flour, corn and meal are contraband OF
war. 1t is probable In view OF the pres
! ent amicable adjustment that the Unit
| ed States will not insist on an immedl-
ate reply TO her demands for compre-
henslve declaration Of policy.
| II is thought, however, that lnasmuch
as Germany, Holland and France have
asked Great Britain for a definition OF
| contraband as applied 20 foodstuffs, the
| scope of the answer TO the United States
| may be enlarged In the near future
A special to the Tribune from Wash
| ington says:
The state department has no informa-
! ton indicating that Consul Hollis at
Pretoria Is receiving from the Boer
government any more recognition for
! British interests, than was vouchsafed
to Consul Mauchan before he aban-
doned his post. No word has been re-
| celved from him. nor has the British
government made formal complaint
| that il Is not receiving the intelligence
| II desired from Mr.. Hollis regarding
the names and condition OF prisoners
confined at Pretoria, but In the absence
Of definite knowledge, the state depart
ment officials are disposed TO believe
| that President Kruger does not intend
to permit the United States consul to
| represent any other interests than those
Of strictly American commercial char
acter.
Whether there will be any modifca-
ton Of this attitude when Consul Hay
reaches his post at Pretoria, about the
last Of this month, Is problematical, but
In the meantime no question Of the
Beers conduct OF the affair Is likely to
come to an issue.
That the treatment accorded to the
efforts Of the United States representa-
tive, who Is presumed to maintain his
strict neutrality, causes chagrin to this
government Is undeniable. The good
| Offices exercised In behalf Of the Prus-
SLAMS al Paris by Minister Washburne
and for the French at Berlin by Minis
ter Bancroft. were above the suspicion
Of either belligeNnt. and what they ac-
compllshed was OF inestimable value TO
the civilized world
When China and Japan fought each
welcomed the assumption Of RESPONSE
blilty In the others territory by Amerl-
can diplomats and consular officials and
in the recent war with Spain the impair
tial devotion shown by British officials
on both sides mtlgated many Of the
| horrors OF conflict. especially at Santi-
ago de Cuba. II Is possible that the
long residence OF Consul Hollis In Brit
lsh Africa may be at the bottom OF the
Boer attitude. He lived for some time
in Capetown, where his father was CON-
sui, and In the last ten years has held
consular positions at Durham, Mozam-
bique and Lourenzo MARQUES.
TEST BLAND.AIIIsoN ACT