The offer was made by several of the American shippers to sell to Great Britain for the value of the goods at the port of original destination at the time they would have arrived there had the voyage not been interrupted.  And the American representative urged that it would be advisable for all American shippers who were interested to agree to sell upon the same terms with a view to securing an arrangement which would include all neutral American property.  He suggested that where the title to property was doubtful both shipper and buyer might unite in the sale, since this course was preferable to incurring questions as between consignors and consignees in the prize courts.[53]

[Footnote 53:  For.  Rel., 1900, p. 551; Choate to Hay, Jan. 12, 1900.]

The English Government had naturally been unwilling to buy at current prices for the reason that prices were doubled at Delagoa Bay after the seizures, but it was considered that the price there on the day of the seizures was not unreasonable.  Great Britain was willing to buy, but emphasized the point that the alleged owners must prove their title to ownership beyond a doubt as an essential condition of the arrangement, since the Government could not incur the risk of paying one man only to have another appear later and prove that he was the real owner.  Fears were expressed that the question of ownership would cause trouble, although the regular shipping documents by which the goods had gotten into the ships, it was thought, should be sufficient proof provided the joint consent of consignors and consignees could be secured.[54]

[Footnote 54:  For.  Rel., 1900, pp. 553, 554, 579]

The English view had been that the whole cargo was included in the libel for trading with the enemy declared against the ship, but the plea of the American owners was heard, that the rules of prize procedure should not be so rigorously enforced in the present instances, since such an interpretation would have led to obvious injustice by requiring innocent American owners to appear before the court to prove the title to their property.[55] Such a requirement, it was realized, would have led to difficulties of an almost unsurmountable character under the circumstances.  Claimants would have had to submit evidence showing a bona fide American citizenship and an actual title to the ownership of the goods at the time they were seized.  Within the rules of prize jurisdiction the consignee on whose account and at whose expense the goods were shipped is considered the owner of such goods during the voyage.  And as a corollary the further rule is suggested that the right to claim damages caused for an illegal seizure would be in the owner.  In the prize court the delay caused by all such questions as between consignor and consignee would have been almost endless.

[Footnote 55:  For.  Rel., 1900, p. 579; Choate to Hay, Feb. 2, 1900.]