the extent that their being on board the ship which had been arrested made their detention unavoidable.  It was further alleged that had the prize court held that the arrest of the ships was not justified they would “presumably have awarded damages against the captors of the ships and the damages would presumably have been so calculated as to enable the ship to meet the claims of merchants arising out of the unjustified interruption of the voyage."[40] The fact was alleged that the court had not so held and that it appeared that the ships should, therefore, bear the consequences of the arrest and meet the merchants’ claims.  By the law of the flag under which the ships sailed they could not carry goods destined for the enemy.  If they shipped such goods they should bear the consequences.  Among those consequences was the delaying of the goods until such time as they could be placed on a ship that could legally carry them on to their original port of destination.

[Footnote 40:  For.  Rel., 1900, p. 618; Salisbury to Choate, July 20, 1900.]

The result of such a decision is apparent.  The American goods, in the words of Mr. Hay, were “as inaccessible to their owners as if they had been landed on a rock in mid-ocean,” since no steamers not belonging to British lines plied between the ports of Cape Colony and Delagoa Bay.  But there seemed little chance of securing a revision of Great Britain’s decision, which was based upon the principle that she might deal with English subjects and with English ships in accordance with the law of the flag under which those ships sailed.  Mr. Hay, therefore, only endeavored to secure every possible guarantee for American interests involved, but incidentally emphasized the view that, although England might use her own as she saw fit she must show just ground for all injuries suffered by innocent American shippers.  Instructions were sent to Mr. Hollis, the United States consul at Lorenzo Marques, that he should investigate the seizures and make every effort to protect the property of American citizens, and later he was urged to ascertain the facts concerning the detention of American flour on board the ships arrested by Great Britain.[41]

[Footnote 41:  For.  Rel, 1900, p. 538; Hay to Hollis, Dec. 28, 1899.]

It soon developed that freight had been prepaid and that the drafts drawn against the various shipments from New York would be protested for non-payment by the parties on whom they had been drawn at Delagoa Bay.[42] Consequently the title to the property in such cases was vested in the American shippers, and they urged their Government to see that their interests were protected against what they considered an undue extension of belligerent rights against ordinary neutral trade from one neutral port to another.  Mr. Hay pointed out the obvious injustice of the goods being in the prize courts with the vessel, even granting that the ship as a common carrier of international