commerce had violated the law of its flag, on the remote possibility of having carried for the enemy.  He insisted that, although the shippers might be required to furnish invoices and bills of lading, they should not be sent to the prize court for their property.  Lord Salisbury, however, contended that the prize court had complete control of the situation, and that any neutral shippers who were innocent could secure the release of their goods only by applying to the court with the proper evidence of ownership.  The injustice of the vigorous enforcement of this rule of prize law was obvious, and the demand was made that the goods should be released by order of the proper British law officer and not be left to the mercy of the prize court.[43] It was urged that since the ships had been seized because of a violation of the municipal law of Great Britain, for trading with the enemy, and since the seizure and detention of the flour and other goods was only incidental to the seizure of the ships, the flour, to which no such offense could be imputed, could not under the circumstances be admitted to be subject to capture because not contraband of war.  Upon these grounds prompt restitution to the American owners was demanded.[44]

[Footnote 42:  For.  Rel, 1900, p. 540; Toomey to Hay, Jan. 3, 1900.]

[Footnote 43:  For.  Rel, 1900, p. 543; Choate to Hay, Jan. 5, 1900.]

[Footnote 44:  For.  Rel., 1900, p. 543; Choate to Salisbury, Jan. 4, 1900.]

The view of the Department was that nothing seemed to justify the seizure of the American goods, for to all intents and purposes they were seized although it was considered by Great Britain that they had merely been detained as an incident of the seizure of the ships on which they were carried.  Since the flour was sold delivered at Delagoa Bay it was therefore the property of the United States shippers until the obligation of delivery was fulfilled irrespective of the drafts made against it on Delagoa Bay.  Upon the return of these drafts unpaid the flour was left in a critical position even if released.[45]

[Footnote 45:  For.  Rel., 1900, p. 548; Toomey to Hay, Jan. 10, 1900.]

It was clearly shown that the flour had been sold in the regular course of business as for a number of years past, shipments being made of so many bags each month to their regular users who anticipated their ordinary requirements.  The consignees, it was urged by the American shippers, were reputable merchants in Delagoa Bay, and the consignments were not of an unusual character but were a part of the ordinary commerce with the East coast.[46] It was admitted that certain of the consignments had been to residents of Johannesburg, but it was at the same time asserted that the consignees were legitimate flour merchants who were not contractors for the Transvaal Government at the time the purchases were made.[47]

[Footnote 46:  For.  Rel., 1900, p. 567; Choate to Salisbury, Jan. 15, 1900.]