'Selection from Correspondence Relative to the Traffic in Arms in the Persian Gulf, 1897-98. Part II' [‎40v] (26/52)

Not printed.
Enclosures to Eoreign Office Letter of 13th May 1898.
No. 1.
Messrs. E. C. Strick & Co. to Foreign Office.
24, Leadenhall Street, London, E.C.,
My Lord Marquess, 6tli May 1898.
In further reference to your Lordship’s letter* of the 5th March, we
left at the Eoreign Office yesterday
certain proofs that the three cases by
the “ Arabistan,” which were intended for Muscat, were overcarried to
Bushire purely and simply by an error.
Among the papers above referred to, we beg to call your Lordship’s
attention to the certified specification of the shipment furnished by the
Customs authorities in Manchester, wherein it will be found that the
ultimate destination of the goods at the time of shipment was Muscat. It
will further be seen by the carbon copies of the ship’s manifest that the
three cases were destined for Muscat, and that the goods do not appear on
the manifest referring to the Bushire cargo, or the option manifest. It will
also be found that the bill of lading A document confirming the goods which a ship has received. distinctly states that the destination of
the goods was Muscat, and the freight note to which we take the liberty of
calling your Lordship’s special attention also gives the destination of the
goods as Muscat. It will also be seen by your Lordship, from the copies
of other freight notes we left at the Eoreign Office, that the freight to
Bushire by our steamers on arms and ammunition was and is 100s. per ton,
whereas the freight paid us by the shippers on the three cases in question
was 140s. per ton, that being then the freight ruling for Muscat, and we
submit to your Lordship that the shippers would not have paid to us freight
at the rate of 140s. per ton had the destination of the goods been Bushire,
the freight for the latter port being, as your Lordship will perceive, 40s. per
ton less than that for Muscat.
We also beg to hand you enclosed a copy of the shippers’ outward invoice,
also showing the destination Muscat.
Beferring to the points raised in your Lordship’s letter of the 5th March,
as to the bills of lading being made out to “ order,” and the goods generalised
as merchandise, we beg to remind your Lordship that it is customary for
bills of lading to be made to “ order,” and endorsed in blank by the shippers,
also for goods to be generalised as merchandise in the body of the bill of
lading. The contents of the cases in question were duly passed in the
specification furnished to the Custom House at the port of loading, and also
set out in the manifest. In support of the custom of bills of lading being
made out to “ order,” we have furnished your Lordship with letters from
several bankers in London testifying that such is the practice, and in con
firmation of the custom of generalising the goods as merchandise in the body
of the bill of lading A document confirming the goods which a ship has received. , we have also left at the Eoreign Office letters from two
or three of the most important lines of steamers who confirm this usage,
together with certain bills of lading, whereon it will be found that these
lines of steamers print “ packages of merchandise ” in the body of the bill
of lading.
We trust these various proofs enumerated in this letter will sufficiently
confirm to your Lordship that the goods were intended for Muscat, that
they were overcarried by mistake, and that no irregularity of any description
occurred in the matter at issue, and that our application to your Lordship
for the release of the three cases in question will meet with your Lordship’s
favourable consideration, and enable us to deliver the cases at their real
destination, namely, Muscat.
We beg, &c.,
The Marquess of Salisbury, K.G.,
&c., &c., &c.
Frank C. Strick.