closing opinions by Sir Robert T. Reid and Mr. Henry Sutton as to the validity of the claim against the United States for damages by reason of the cutting of the cables.12 Lord Tweeddale's letter with its enclosures was submitted to the Attorney General of the United States, who, on February 1, 1899, rendered an opinion in which he held that, "upon the law of the case, there is no ground for the claim to indemnity."13 On February 7, 1899, the Secretary of State transmitted to the British Ambassador at Washington a copy of the opinion of the Attorney General.1 On March 13, 1899, the British Ambassador, acknowledging the receipt of the opinion and acting under the direction of his government, without questioning the correctness of the opinion rendered by the Attorney General, expressed the hope that the Government of the United States would be disposed to entertain the company's claim "apart from strictly legal consideration," and, "in the absence of any positive rule of international law," would recognize it to an extent at least "from an equitable point of view."15 The Secretary of State, on July 26, 1899, replied to the letter of the British Ambassador, stating that, so far as the legal aspects of the case were concerned, he must reiterate the opinion of the law officers of his government that it was not in any way bound to reimburse the company for the losses sustained by reason of the cutting of the cables, but that "in the circumstances, as a matter of equity and comity," the President was inclined to consider the reimbursement of the company of "its actual expenses incurred in the repair of its cable to Hong Kong. 9916 With this apparent agreement between the two governments that the company's claim had no legal status and that any reimbursement of actual expenses for repair of the cables would be an act of grace on the part of the Government of the United States, the President, on January 16, 1900, recommended to Congress such reimbursement "as an act of equity and comity. The message making the recommendation was accompanied by a report of 9917 12 Memorial, pp. 9-15. 13 Memorial, p. 17. 14 Memorial, p. 19. 15 Memorial, p. 20. 16 Memorial, p. 21. 17 Memorial, p. 6. the Secretary of State transmitting certain documents relative to the case. 18 The Secretary of State in his report directs special attention to the fact "that no formal claim in behalf of the company is presented by Her Majesty's Government, but that that Government submits whether, as an act of grace, some pecuniary compensation may not be granted to the company for the loss which it is alleged to have suffered in this regard." All the subsequent recommendations to Congress by the executive branch of the Government of the United States for reimbursement of the expense incurred by the telegraph company in repairing its cables were based upon the assumption that the company had no legal claim against the United States and that the reimbursement recommended would, if made, be an act of grace founded on comity. The Government of His Britannic Majesty never formally presented the claim to the Government of the United States, unless the inclusion of it in the schedule of claims annexed to the Special Agreement of August 18, 1910, can be construed to be such a presentation. His Majesty's Government have never asserted that the United States is legally liable for any damage sustained by the telegraph company through the cutting of its cables by the military authorities of the United States operating in the Philippine Islands; nor do they so assert in their memorial filed in support of the claim. Upon the foregoing facts and circumstances relative to the cutting of the cables of The Eastern Extension, Australasia and China Telegraph Company, Limited, the United States contends: (1) That the cutting of the cables of the company by the military authorities of the United States, on the 2nd and 23rd of May, 1898, were necessary war measures. (2) That the terminals of the cables so cut being within enemy's territory, and under the control of the enemy's military authorities, the cables acquired the character of enemy property and the United States was entitled to treat them as such. (3) That the action of the company on May 10, 1898, in sealing the cable at its Hong Kong terminal in compliance with the request of the Spanish Government, although the severed end 18 Memorial, pp. 8-9. of the cable in Manila Bay was under the control of the military authorities of the United States, was an hostile act, which impressed this cable with the character of enemy property, and the United States was entitled so to consider it. (4) That the United States did not take possession of and was not in control of the Hong Kong and Manila cable during the war, as evidenced by the fact that the Hong Kong terminal was sealed by the company at the direction of the Spanish Government and that the company refused to unseal the same at the request of the United States on the ground that it was prohibited from so doing by the Spanish Government. (5) That the United States has never admitted any liability for the losses which resulted from the cutting of the company's cables, but has at all times specifically denied such liability. (6) That the Government of His Britannic Majesty have never asserted that the United States was liable in damages for the losses which resulted from the cutting of the company's cables; but, on the contrary, by failing to question the formal denial by the Government of the United States of liability for such losses, by refusing to present the claim formally, and by requesting relief only as an act of grace, have acquiesced in the assertion of non-liability made by the United States and have admitted such non-liability. (7) That, in any event, the claim not having been formally called to the attention of the Government of the United States by the Government of His Britannic Majesty until its inclusion in the schedule of claims signed June 6, 1911, no interest can be included in any award pursuant to the terms of submission annexed to the Special Agreement of August 18, 1910. The United States therefore asks that the claim of The Eastern Extension, Australasia and China Telegraph Company, Limited, be dismissed and finally barred. ROBERT LANSING, Agent of the United States. APPENDIX. CONTENTS. Page. Brigadier General George P. Scriven to the Agent of the United States, January 16, 1914.. 15 EXHIBIT 1. The American Ambassador at London to the Secretary of State. No. 427. SIR, AMERICAN EMBASSY, LONDON, June 11th, 1898. I have the honour to transmit herewith a letter from the Marquess of Tweeddale dated the 9th instant together with a copy of a letter addressed by him to Sir Julian Pauncefote, which came enclosed therein, respecting the cutting by Admiral Dewey, of the Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telegraph Company's cables between Hong Kong, Manila and Capiz. I have the honour to be Sir, Your obedt. Servant, JOHN HAY. Enclosures: Lord Tweeddale to Mr. Hay-June 9/98, 1. Lord Tweeddale to Sir Julian Pauncefote-June 9/98, 2. [Enclosure.] Lord Tweeddale to the American Ambassador. THE EASTERN EXTENSION AUSTRALASIA AND CHINA TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED. WINCHESTER HOUSE, 50 OLD BROAD STREET, LONDON, E. C. SIR: 9th June, 1898. Adverting to our recent interview respecting the cutting by Admiral Dewey of the Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telegraph Company's Cables between Hongkong, Manila and Capiz, I now have the honor to forward to Your Excellency for transmission to Washington a copy of a letter which I have addressed to Sir Julian Pauncefote requesting His Excellency to make representations to the Government of the United States on the subject with a view to suitable compensation being granted to the Company |