In the end most of the American claims were withdrawn or paid in full.  In the former event the American owners threw the burden of proof of ownership upon the consignees, who were instructed to present their claims through their respective governments.  But it should be noted that in acceding to the American demands by purchasing the goods, the British Government emphasized the fact that the act was purely ex gratia on the part of England.  The British representative clearly stated that the goods had been legally detained and that it was open for the owners to come and take them upon proof of ownership before the prize court.  It was pointed out that the fact that none but British ships ran between Cape Colony and Delagoa Bay, although an unfortunate circumstance, was one which could hardly be held to be a fault of the English Government.  The enforcement of the English law was the right of Great Britain no matter upon whom the inconvenience might happen to fall.  Lord Salisbury said:  “It must be distinctly understood that these payments are made purely ex gratia and having regard to the special circumstances of this particular case.  No liability is admitted by Her Majesty’s Government either to purchase the goods or to compensate ... for the losses or for the expenses ... incurred."[58] The view held by the English statesman was that Great Britain’s concession in these cases should not serve as a precedent in the future.

[Footnote 58:  For.  Rel., 1900, p. 618; Salisbury to Choate, July 20, 1900, with reference to the Beatrice.]

The attitude which Great Britain had assumed with reference to the different seizures was generally considered a menace to neutral commercial interests should the British position be accepted as a precedent for similar cases that might occur.  The danger of such a precedent had been realized by Secretary Hay and throughout the negotiations he had dwelt upon the fact that while the protection of American interests was the end immediately sought, the principles which underlay the disposition of the particular cases were of the greater importance.

Lord Roseberry, too, called attention to the danger of the precedent should England determine to treat foodstuffs in general as contraband of war.  It was pointed out, however, that in the seizures of foodstuffs near Delagoa Bay the question of contraband did not necessarily arise, since all trade with the enemy, even in articles the most innocent, was forbidden under heavy penalty.  The seizure of certain classes of foodstuffs as of a contraband character did not of necessity involve the principle of treating all foodstuffs as contraband of war.  The English view was that it had long been recognized that a belligerent might discriminate between foodstuffs obviously intended for the commissariat of an army in the field and foodstuffs which might be properly imported for the use of the non-combatant population.