Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1915-10-10
PACKERS UNITE IN
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Course Of British Government in
Meat Seizure Case is Called Into
Question Plainly.
EFFORT TO DECEIVE PUBLIC

State department, out Win the pun
lie. possibly TO strengthen England's
position and weaken the case OF the
packers, whose s15,000.00O worth
Of products have been illegally seized
$4,000, 900 worth Of which has been
confiscated, is seen by Chicago pack
ers in recent articles sent out from
Washington. These articles state
that they are based on charges made
BY Great Britain.
Packers Make Denial
Last night q denial Of the latest
.'-harre" By Great Britain was made by
J. ogden Armour Of Armour q Co, @. F.
swim. r.. Of Swift & Company and
Tseznas +. Wilson Of Morris Co.
II n absolutely denied that previous
- the war any arrangement was made
~ the packers with the German AMI
Austrian governments for the sale and
transportation Of meat products to them"
say the packers. mo payments on ac-
count we're made for those governments.
a. the goods were not sold or CONSIGNED
20 them. On the contrary they were sold
60 neutrais. with whom any American
shipper had the right. under the provi-
sion Of international law. TO do business.
No Agreement with Germany.
There was no Arrangement between
the packers and the Germanic allies for
the transhipunent Of the products through
neutral countries to the beliigerents.
1T Is positively absurd and vigorously
denied that the packers were insured
against loss on any shipments by the
German government.
The prize court, In confiscating over
100000 worth OF products. stated that II
was on the assumption that the ship
ments were destined for Germany and
placed the burden Of proof upon the
shippers
I'VE repeatedly have endesvored to
have Great Britain come to a settlement
OF our claims. but our representatives
whom we have sent 20 England have
been put off from day TO day. and the
only offer Of settlement carried with Il
a guaranty from us against claims Of
ship owners aud foreign buyers, which
proposition was prohibitive.
VIII Accept Fair settlement.
I'VE are willing at any time 10 accept
a fair and honest settlement OF our
claims and are not asking anything UNI
reasonable. No one IN apparent authority
viii consult with US upon a. proposition
Tor cash settlement and We can make
little OF no Roadway.
Terms too strong cannot be used in
denying the grossly absurd and Inn
pertinent assertion that our losses are
protected by Germany and Austria.
The first Of several illustrations OF a
sampaign 20 strengthen the English case
Il the expense OF the packers was tho
niera6runduiu given out by the British
foreign office In May last IN connection
with the announcement OF tho failure to
aarca with the packers concerning set
temant % these prize court cases.
Negotiations were on for the purchase
hy the British government OF the seized
cargces.
" The negotiations have come TO a
standstiIl said the foreign office memoir
endum. owing 20 the exorbitant terms In
sisted upon by the representatives OF the
American packers
Memorandum Misleading.
As matter OF fact. though the ne
eotiations had been going on for four
months. never once had the British au-
thorfties objected to the prices asked.
They waited until the packers repre-
sentative. Alfred Urion. was on the ocean
on his way home and then they gave to
tho press this defense Invented on the
spur Of the moment for the purpose Of
apparently prejudlcing the packers case
IN the minds OF the American public.
The second instance, with the same
object In view. was the British note OF
June a. IN which she foreign office at
tempted 60 put ON the packers the blame
for delay in deciding. the prise court
cases. This note was IN reply 70 our
state departments protest against de-
lay o protest made at the request OF
our meat Interests. The British foreign
office attempted 20 make our govern
ment believe that the delay was due Il
request of the packers for postponement
The fact was that the request for delay
was from Scandinavian importers and
foreign buyers. not from tho packers
The British foreign office knew this. and
tho prize cour. Iecords show plainly
yet. In spite of the fact that the pack,
ers had nothing whatever 70 do with the
request for continuance. the British gov
eminent. In a formal note to the AmerI.
can government. falsely stated that q
was at the request OF the packers thai
tho delay was granted.
Instances Are Typical.
These two instances are taken as typi
cal. but there were others OF Xix,
character which have marked the pro
gress OF the case since the seizure o.
the meat cargoes last November. Thes,
arc specified because the government
records and the official minutes OF IN,
prize court proceedings substantlate ths
accusation OF decision ON the part O.
the British authorities. Another strik
ing proof OF the insineerlty Of the Brit
ish contention in the prize court cas-
has Just come 10 light The American
meat carEoes were consigned 20 Scan
dinavian ports. The British govern
ment seized them and confiscated then
on the ground that they were intended
for enemy use. The records OF the priz,
court proceedings show that the British
government wholly failed 10 prove tina
the goods were intended for such pur
pose Indeed. the prize court decision
% admitted. claiming that the burdel
Of proof was on the packers. which wa
only another way Of lodging the issue
1t Is apparent the British attitnd
from the beginning has been one o
might against right. They have violate,
international law in interfering with neu
fral trade and know H. They simpl.
ffItd No make the best OF a bad caee