The American Tobacco Company vs Guardian Assurance Company, Ltd.

Claim of the American Tobacco Company 


This series consists of documentary evidence submitted by the American Tobacco Com­pany in support of its claim for the loss of 15,000 bales of tobacco destroyed by fire in Smyrna. The evidence includes copies of foreign court records and statements containing background information on the fire. Some of the records, labeled "Property of the American Tobacco Company," in French, include material entitled "Proclamations et rapports officials, 1923," and "Depositions faites aupres du Tribunal Consulaire de France a Smyrna."

SOURCE
Mavi Boncuk |


The epilogue of the Smyrna drama was played out in London at the High Court of Justice, during the first weeks of December 1924. The American Tobacco Company was bringing suit against the Guardian Assurance Company, Ltd. Maintaining that the fire was a result of “hostile and warlike operations”, the insurance company had invoked its exemption clause and refused to pay. The claim was for over $600,000, and it was understood that the outcome of the trial would govern other claims totaling $100,000,000.


A cast of familiar characters paraded to the witness stand before Mr. Justice Rowlatt. Spunky little Major Cherefeddin Bey described how he had been struck with a hand grenade as he led his cavalry regiment down the quay on 9 September two years before, but the Armenian culprit in his original story had now become “a uniformed, armed Greek soldier who threw the bomb”. Beyond this incident the Major had seen no disorder at Smyrna because, he said, “nothing took place”.


A Colonel Mouharrem Bey admitted that feeling ran high against the Armenians because “we used to read reports in our newspapers of their behaviour, which led us to believe they were not friendly to us”. Yes, the army had distributed proclamations referring to “the injustice and cowardice of the Greeks, who nevertheless proved to be the most cruel enemy unlike any nation in the history of the human race”, but the Colonel swore that his troops were well disciplined and denied that his patrols had participated in any looting, rape or murder. “The patrols would never do such a thing”, he said.


The Colonel was recalled to the stand after a witness for the plaintiff unwittingly revealed that a cordon of Turkish soldiers had held the victims in the fire zone. “Did you want to prevent the people going anywhere?” asked Mr. A. T. Miller, representing the Guardian Assurance Company.


“Yes, we prevent them.”


“Going where?”


“We prevent them to be not escape from there only to stay there.” Mr. Justice Rowlatt thought this wasn't much of a translation.


Miller tried again with another interpreter. “Why did you have the cordon on the quay? Did you want them burnt?”


“No, only to keep them by the boats.”


During his cross-examination of Mr. Chester Griswold (of Griswold and Brunswick, fig merchants), Mr. Miller again confirmed the presence of Turkish cordons around the city.


Did Mr. Griswold think it right that the people should thus be prevented from escaping the fire?


Mr. Griswold thought it was done for their own good. The roads leading from town were in bad neighbourhoods: “A good many bad characters live around there,” he said.


Did Mr. Griswold mean to say that the cordon was placed there by the Turks “to prevent the people from falling into bad hands?”


“I presume that,” said Mr. Griswold.


Griswold testified to having carried an American flag on his car, and to having placed American sailor guards at the bakeries - not to protect the bakers, who were Greek, but simply to keep them from selling bread. He had driven around town a good deal before and after the fire, in his capacity as secretary of the relief committee. The town was quiet and he had seen no violence.


Under cross-examination Griswold admitted that his Turkish business partner was the mayor of Smyrna and that he was also a friend and associate of a man named Archbell, a director of the American Tobacco Company - the plaintiff in the case.


Mr. Rene Guichet, chief engineer of the French railway company, with offices at the edge of the Armenian quarter, had seen nothing unusual before the fire except a little pillaging and heard nothing except a few “joy firings”; but he had to concede that there was essentially little difference in the sound of a gun being fired in joy or in anger. The Armenian population had not been molested so far as he knew because they were at first “closed in”, and later “they had left”. Again, he was forced to admit that it was not easy to tell the difference between people shut indoors and people absent, but he had an intuitive feeling of the way it had been.


Witnesses of every nationality, including an English business associate of the enterprising Mr. Archbell (this one in the garage and agricultural machinery business) supported the view that a single fire had spread accidentally, through the force of the wind.


Mr. Justice Rowlatt did not feel enlightened when the plaintiffs had rested their case. “This is one of the vaguest cases I've ever tried,” he complained.


“I’ m afraid it is very difficult, my lord,” Miller conceded.


“If this was a more civilized city,” mused the Judge, “one very probable explanation would be that somebody who was looting had got drunk. But as it is a semi-barbarous place the question of drink is not mentioned in the case.”


The haze began to clear as the defendant's witnesses took the stand. British naval officers offered their logs in evidence that while the wind was pleasantly brisk it was by no means stiff enough to fan the flames from the Collegiate Institute clear to the quay. Nurse Mabel Kalfa, the Reverend Charles Dobson, Major Maxwell of the Royal Marines, Sir Harry Lamb, members of the Smyrna fire department, and others were explicit about the origin and spreading of the flames and about the increase in violence as the days went on. A number of victims described their experiences. Among these was a lady who had been raped, whose daughter had been assaulted, and whose father had been slain by Turkish soldiers. In a dramatic cross-examination Mr. Wright, representing the plaintiff, implied that she was masquerading under a false name, but was unable to prove his Allegation. He had no better luck in trying to shake the firemen's stories. “It must have struck you as a remarkable thing that the Turks were saying they were allowed to burn down Smyrna,” he told fireman Katzaros.


“Why should it appear remarkable when I saw it myself?” “Did you mention it to your fellow workmen at the fire brigade afterwards ?”


“If I mentioned that,” said Katzaros, “they would have hanged me by the tongue.”


During his summation Wright noted severely, “This is a charge against a nation,” but he drew signs of amusement in the courtroom when he insisted that the Turks had “made every attempt to maintain order”. By now thoroughly frustrated, the counsel for the plaintiff asked the Judge to admonish the opposition: “With great respect, my lord, the case here is serious, the evidence is flimsy, and it is not made the less flimsy by my learned friend ridiculing what I am saying!”


“No, no,” said the Judge. “But I do not know that the other side, who will not be able to reply, are called upon not to laugh at what you said.”


On Friday, 19 December, Mr. Justice Rowlatt delivered a con­sidered judgment in favour of the defendant insurance company. The Judge, according to the London Times, entertained no doubt about the occurrences.


Neither the trial nor the verdict made much of an impact on the historical record, even in England. Not long afterwards a British publisher informed George Horton that The Blight of Asia could not be published there because “the British public was now so interested in the Mosul oil interests that they did not wish anything circulated that might offend the Turks”.