\\ 
 
 1 
 
 A = 
 
 S= r- 
 
 
 
 A — 
 
 = V> 
 
 = 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^— m 
 ^ 33 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 3D 
 
 ■^ m 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 =r o 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 — > 
 
 ^— r — 
 
 / ^ 
 
 = m 
 
 
 — 33 
 
 3 = 
 
 = J. 
 = 3) 
 
 = 
 
 ^ -n 
 
 = 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 S I^ 
 
 u 
 
 
 Argunent , . , Before the 
 Goinmlttee on the Judiciary 
 
 by 
 
 Edgar P, Brown
 
 k 03IAI3a
 
 fo^ 
 
 ARGUMENT 
 
 OF 
 
 EDGAR F. BROWN, 
 
 ^ 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 Committee on the Judiciary 
 
 OF THE 
 
 House of Representatives, at Washington, 
 
 Jaxuaky 28th, 1876, 
 ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN 
 
 Claimants under the Geneva Award. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 p. F. McBKEEN, Pkintek, 14 & 10 Ann Stkeet.
 
 > » •_ e • • 
 
 • • "• 
 
 
 • •• 
 • • 
 
 • m • • • • • 
 
 • ••• • .•< ••• •
 
 rx 
 
 AKGU3IE^T BY EDGAR F. BROWN 
 
 Before the Committee ox the Judiciaky of 
 THE House of Repeesextatiyes at Wash- 
 ington, January 28, 1876, on behalf of 
 Claimants to the Fund paid by Great 
 Britain to the United States under 
 the Geneva Award. 
 
 Mr. Clmlnnan and Gentlemen of tlie Committee: 
 
 (^ I liave listened with interest to the arguments 
 
 which liave been made before von on behalf of the 
 
 V various claimants to the fund paid by Great Britain 
 
 ^ to the I'nited States under the Geneva Award. 
 
 \ These claimants have arranged themselves under 
 
 ^ two classes, the one asking to be indemnified for 
 
 ^ actual losses sustained., and the other to receive 
 
 "^ about five millions ofch)llars which is to be added to 
 
 "^ Xirofits alread}^ received, growing out of the 
 
 ^ hazard of insuring owners of vessels and cargoes 
 
 ^' against loss by the so called "confederate cruisers" 
 
 . during our late civil war. 
 "^ It is apparent that all persons who have received 
 ^ no remnneration for their losses are entitled to be 
 1 first paid fiom this fund, unless a special trust or 
 intei-est attaches to it in favor of the underwriters 
 as insurers, who have been large gainers by the 
 , business of insuring against these war risks — 
 Documentary Evidence of the nature of the claims 
 
 425768
 
 o 
 
 })i'osuiit('cl by tliis Ci()\ fniniciit a^aiiisl JMiii'lniHl 
 before the Tiibiiiial of tliein-oceediiigs had before it 
 and of the iiatmc of tlie award made by it has been 
 so fully set forth and cited in tlic i)rinted arguments 
 of counsel already before you, that it would seem 
 needless for me to do more than made reference to 
 such of them as may bear upon the question of tlie 
 obligation of the United States in ivlation to tlie 
 di sirihutiort of tliese ni()ne3-s. 
 
 From my reading of these documents, and in 
 listening to the arguments made befoj-e you by 
 representatives of all claimants, I find that we all 
 substantially agree to these facts, viz., that the 
 arbitration v^^'A^ wJwlly irtternatiorudm its charac- 
 ter and jurisdiction, that the ])]incipal claims 
 against Great Britain were based upon national 
 grounds, consisting of tlie alleged riolafion hij 
 England of her ohllgat'ions as a nentTal government 
 towards the United States in the loo //a.^ti/ recogni- 
 tion of a state of belligereiu-y. whicli was the prin- 
 cii)al and initial cause of all the losses sustained by 
 any of the claimants. That no specific claims were 
 adjusted. That claims of i/z/elmcr iters' Avere e:v- 
 presslf/ reserved. And, linally, that a sunt in gross 
 was i)aid as damage to the Ignited States, which 
 tiiat Government insisted should be ])aid disciicum- 
 bered of rrr/g Iriisl, and with full ])ow(M- t(» distrib- 
 ute it amongst its cirizcns who suffered loss as it 
 should (h'ciii ('Xj)edient and just. aii<l to which 
 demand England acceded. 
 
 Til" gr<'at (lucstion then for Congi-ess to det(M-niine 
 ill tin- (listril)ution of the n-iiiaining moneys ])aid to 
 thf I nif<'<l States by (ji-eal l>rilain under the (iciu'va 
 Award is, wh(.'th«'r it is at liberty to indemnify the 
 loyal citizens (ff Amci-ica for actual /o.v.sv^v sustained 
 by the acts of tln' Confederate cini.sers, British
 
 built, or receiving aid in men, armament and pro- 
 visions in British ports, or whether tliis Government 
 is obligated in law or in equity to pay these moneys 
 
 to corporations that have made large profits in the 
 business of insuring against war risks. These cor- 
 porations are the only claimants before you who are 
 not losers, and their claims are resisted by all others 
 upon this ground alone. The claims of underwriters 
 are made u}ion the ground that the Tribunal found 
 Great Britain liable only for the acts of the Alabama, 
 Florida, and Shenandoah after leaving Melbourne; 
 while the records of the proceedings show that 
 nearly all of the cruisers that caused the damage 
 for which redress is now sought, received in a 
 greater or less degree aid in men, armament and 
 supplies in British ports. The Florida, Alabama, 
 Georgia, Tallahasse, Chickamauga, and Shenandoah 
 were Britisli built cruisers, three of which, the Ala- 
 bama, Georf/ia, and Slienandoali were never in a 
 port of the Confederates States. All the other 
 vessels, except the Boston, Jefferson Davis, Sallie 
 and one or two others, had received aid from Britisli 
 subjects in British ])orts. The claims for damages 
 by those vessels only were excluded upon the 
 "■round that there was no evidence to sustain them. 
 The damage done by the Alabama and her tenders 
 reached the enormous sum of 87,050,293.76; by the 
 Shenandoah, §6,656,838.81; and by the Florida, 
 $4,293,869.60; by the Chickamauga, $183,070.73; 
 by the Georgia, $431,160.72; and by the Tallahasse, 
 $830,841.83. These claims were subject to large 
 reductions including prospective earnings, double 
 claims for the same loss, &c. ; but this aggregate of 
 claims presented before the Tribunal of about 
 $20,000,000 for losses occurring by the acts of 
 British built vessels will show how diminutive were
 
 the losses snstnined by n\u-U vessels as luid lun-ei- 
 reached a British port. It was by rensoii of the 
 plain Tiohdion of the duties of a iieiitial nation in 
 furnisliing this aid, that Great Britain was called 
 to account. It was shown that her too ^9rfc//?//a/(? 
 recognition of belligerent rights was the initiatory 
 and real cause of all these losses. 
 
 England was not, therefore, exculpated from the 
 payment of a large portion of these claims for loss 
 ui)on the ground that her subjects did not furnish 
 the means of destruction in her own. ^jorts., Init 
 upon the giound that our government failed to 
 ojjb-iallii notify her of the acts complained of in 
 time to liold her responsible ;is ;i nation for ])ermit- 
 ting the wrong. 
 
 If (mr Government was at all in fnult in this 
 respect how reasonable tliat in accepting a gross 
 sum, in full satisfaction of all t\w. claims now repi-e- 
 sented before this Committee and presented before 
 the Geneva Tribunal, it should insist U])on tlie 
 right to distribute the money amongst its citizens 
 according to equity and justice^ thus protecting all 
 wiio had suffered loss before granting an y indemni- 
 ty to those who had been so fortunate as to realize 
 large projlts hy the hazaid of insuranc*' against war 
 risks. 
 
 Mr. Fish, in his letter of iiisl inciioiis, says. "The 
 ''Pi'esident (h-siirs nic to h.-ixc t hesubject discussed 
 "as one bet wt'cn t he two (iovei-nnicnts * * '^ 
 "to secure W possilih the :iw:ir(l ol" ;i sum in u,ross. 
 "And in t he t renrnieut of the/v/Z/yr ciise you will be 
 "caieful 110/ to coniuiit the (TO\'ei-nuieut iistothe 
 "dis])ositioii of ^\ll:lt in;iy be Mwarded. 'i'JM> 
 ''C^)^■e)•nment wishes to hold il>«lf fn'C to decide as 
 "to the rig/ds and chiiins t)^ insnrii's. \\ fhe \;due 
 "of the ])ro])ei'ty ciijit u red (udest royi'd I )e ivcdxci-id
 
 5 
 
 "in the name of the Government, the distribution of 
 "the amount recovered will be made by tliis Govern- 
 "ment without committal as to the mode of distribu- 
 tion." It is 7iot denied that these instructions were 
 received by the counsel, that the case was thus pre- 
 sented and that England acquiesced\iit\iQ: demand, 
 Jind a sum loas aicardedm gross iclthout calculation 
 as to any item, under the Itli article of tlie treaty, 
 in satisfaction and discliar ge of all the claims 
 presented, and all that might exist on behalf of the 
 United States, or its citizens, wiiich grew^ out of the 
 causes which had to the arbitration. Our Govern- 
 ment then received the money with the right con- 
 ceded to distribute it as though it came from its 
 own Treasury^ disencumbered of any trust or obli- 
 gation to disburse it amongst any particular class 
 of claimants and entirely free to do justice to all. 
 
 Mr. Cushing, counsel for our Government, in his 
 book upon Alabama claims, says : 
 
 " The awaid is to the United States, in conformity 
 "with the letter of the treat}', which has for its 
 " well-delined object to remove and adjust com- 
 " plaints and claims on the part of the United 
 "States." 
 
 "But the history of the treaty and of the arbi- 
 " tration, show^s that the United States recover, not 
 "for the benefit of the American Government as 
 " such, })ut of such individual citizens of the United 
 " States as shall appear to have suffered loss by the 
 "acts or neglects of the British Government. It is 
 "however, he says, Tioi^ special trust legally af- 
 ^■'■fected. to any particular claim or claimants, but 
 "a general fund to be administered by the United 
 " States in good faith, in conformity with theiv oioji 
 "conceptions of justice and equity, iDithin the range 
 " of the award. * * Nor does the tribunal
 
 6 
 
 "define affiiniatively wliat cluinis sliould be satis- 
 "fied otlierwise than in tlie e()nii)relienaive terms of 
 "tlie awai-d, wliicli declares tliat the snm awarded 
 "is 'the indemnity to be paid b}^ Great Biitain to 
 " the United States for the satisfaction of all tlie 
 " claims referred to the consideration of tln^ tribu- 
 "nal, conformably to the ])rovision8 contained in 
 " artich^ l'//of the aforesaid ti-cnity/'' He fnrther 
 says. "The arbitrators, be it observed, do not say 
 "for the satisfaction of certain specific clainis 
 "among those referred to the consideration of the 
 "tril)nnal, Init of ^ all the claims'' so referred con- 
 "formably to the provisions of the treaty." 
 
 This wonld seem to be a fail- statement and view 
 of the situation of the fund in tpu^stion and the 
 doctrine of subrogation invoked on behalf of un- 
 derwriters has no application to the case ju-esented 
 before you. The ownei- of the propei'tj destroyed 
 by the Alabama, Florida oi- Shenandoah, has no in- 
 terest in the fnnd Avhich he could enforce, if unin- 
 snred, either in the courts or by international law. 
 it was not })aid as Jiis nioxcy. The Government 
 refused to receive it as sncli. il'he :i|)])lication for 
 relief is now made by all t he claimants asa yratuil y. 
 ir a])])ro])riate(l it must be Aow^^uw gratia and ujion 
 no otiier ])rinci])le. 
 
 The law of subrogation gives Ww insurer who 
 stands in the ichition of surety hi his princi/xtl 
 when he pays the toss the right to the ])i'operty in- 
 sured after abandonment, as also the riyht <f action 
 against a wrongdoei- who causes the loss. But it is 
 not claimed that any riiiht of action accru«^(l to the 
 assured, oi' the assurer for llie destruction of this 
 projierty, either ayaiiist (,'r< <i/ llrilaiu or an}' one 
 else. i\7> dictum of any wiitei- on international 
 law, has been cited to that ell'ect. In fai-t our uiu-
 
 7 
 
 nicijycdlaio prolilhits the maMny of such a claim, 
 and any claim npon this nation through Congress 
 for indemnification could rest only upon the duty 
 of the Government to protect its citizens which is 
 answer«^d in this case by the fact that all reasonable 
 diligence was used and therefore the application 
 must be ex gratia for such reparation as the Govern- 
 ment ma}' deem proper to grant. 
 
 The decision in the case of Comegys v. Yasse, (1 
 Peters. 193). and kindred cases cited in behalf of 
 the underwriters to substantiate their right by sub- 
 rogation, was based upon the fact that by the 7th 
 ssction of the treat}' with Spain, the clawis of tJie 
 citizen were recognized. The treaty recited that as 
 the municipal law was inadequate ''a full and com- 
 " plete compensation will be made by the British 
 *' Government to the com/plainants^'''' No such 
 provision is contained in the treaty relating to Ala- 
 bama Claims, and the case cited is not an authority 
 establishing any right in the insurance companies 
 to this fund. 
 
 Tlie comi)anies however ask you to apply a doc- 
 trine which a court could not enforce in order that 
 you may do a gross injustice, viz. to add to their 
 eiiormoiis 'profits at the expense of the very persons 
 through lolioni these profits were derived, and who 
 have not only lost the money they were compelled 
 to pay for protection, but other large sums in the 
 interuption and diversion of their trade. 
 
 The question which you are free to determine be- 
 tween these claimants is, whether those who have 
 lost nothing but are lai-ge gainers b}^ the misfor- 
 tunes of others, ought to be paid an additional 
 profit, to the exclusion of persons who are actual 
 sufferers and losers, and who have received no re- 
 muneration for their losses. This is the precise sit-
 
 8 
 
 nation and relation of tlie claims of the nnmerous 
 merchants I represent to those of the nnderwriters. 
 If it be said that the payment of these war premi- 
 nms was a measure of fear or coioardice, I answer 
 that no merchant could have continued his buisness 
 a month without insuring agjiinst war risks, he 
 could not obtain a dollar's worth of goods at home 
 or abroad on credit, without a clean policy against 
 this risk for the benefit of his creditor, as no mer- 
 chant was independent of credit. 
 
 The courts early decided that the underwriter 
 was not liable for loss upon a polic-y for maiine 
 risks, when the loss occui-red by the acts of Con- 
 federate cruisers. The shipper was then compelled 
 to insure against war risks, increasing the expense 
 of insurance three-fold. 
 
 It has been said that the merchant x)ay].ng these 
 excessive rates charged th(Mn in the cost of his 
 o-oods and lost nothing. This allegation is in no sense 
 true. A large portion of the American canying trade 
 was tianslerred to neutral bottoms insuretl at ordin- 
 ary rates, as these vessels wei-e free from danger of 
 capture, and coinpetitioH tliiougli this cliannel 
 refutes the idea that any merchant could control 
 the market pi'ice of the world \\\ Ji ix Jitic (f iner- 
 cliandifihir/^ there was no niono])oli/ing jjower to 
 that extent in the hands of any one who now makes 
 claim to this fund. 
 
 The underwriters expr<»ss their willingness in ask- 
 ing for tJie balance of this I'mid to conline them- 
 selves to the acts of the Alabama, Florida, and 
 IShenandoah after leaving Melbourn(^ because the 
 Geneva Tribunal found England at fault as regards 
 these vessels only, although their losses by all the 
 vessels have been ])i-ovide(l for. They claim that 
 the money was paid to indenmiry the persons who
 
 9 
 
 lost by these vessels, while the other claimants are 
 losers by all, or nearly all the cruisers, and there- 
 fore should be first paid, ignoring- the facts that the 
 great arbitrataion was chiefly constituted for the set- 
 tlement of international rights. That the subject of 
 money damage was incidental and as far as possible 
 avoided bv our Government. That while by the tenth 
 article of the treaty assessors might have been ap- 
 pointed to prove specilic claims, the money was 
 paid as a gross sum under the seventh article, in 
 satisfaction not of insurance claims or war pre- 
 niium claims, (for both these claims were rejected 
 for being doubly presented,) or any particular class 
 of claims, but of any and all just claims of the 
 nation and of its citizens, with the right of distribu- 
 tion ahsolutely and unqualifiedly resting with our 
 Government to which it was paid, and while actual 
 sufferers mi (/lit, England could not complain even 
 though the United States should cover this money 
 into the treasury for the nation's benefit. 
 
 The right oi claimants to this fund does not 
 depend on the question of the negligence of the 
 English Government in letting the three vessels 
 escape, but upon the facts that cdl the vessels that 
 destroyed the property and created the losses, did 
 receive aid and sitpport in men, provisions and 
 armament in British ports; and hut for this and 
 the too early recognition of belligerent rights by 
 Great Britain as a neutral ])ower, all these evils 
 wottld have been averted. 
 
 It seems to me that the plain dut}' of Congress is 
 to apportion the fund amongst these claimants 
 according to the merits of each case^ withottt 
 reference to the particular acts of the Alabama, 
 Florida, or Shenandoah, if his claim arises from the 
 act or acts of anj^ vessel receiving aid from British
 
 IT) 
 
 'ports. It was tlic duty of onr Govei-nmeiit to pro- 
 tect tlie persons and property of its eitiz(Mis wliile 
 engaged in lawful commerce upon tlie liigli seas to 
 the extent of its power. Its inahility to do so was 
 a source of regret and mortification, and tlie wrongs 
 tliat its citizens Lave suffered by this inability and 
 which have thus far gone unnnlressed, may now be 
 rtpaired by the Just distribution of the money paid 
 by England as part rei)aration for her wrongs. 
 
 The actual sufferers now asking to be paid their 
 losses, are the persons who were compellinl to pay 
 large sums for tlie protection of their pro})erty as I 
 have stated, and those who have suffered iu tin- 
 class re])resented by Mr. Metcalf, llirough the acts 
 of vessels otliei than the Alabama, Florida, and 
 Shenandoah, and while his loss was caused b}' the 
 actual destruction of his yn-operty which was unin- 
 sured, he choosing to take a risk, the class of claim- 
 ants I I'epresent coidd not tal'e ike risJx and were 
 compelled to pay for protection; both are losers of 
 amounts clearly ascertainablymid equally entitled 
 to be paid from this fund. 
 
 Section 12 of the act, distributing a portion of the 
 fund, i)i'Ovides for the payment of all ^/r///<// losses 
 by undericrilers through the acts of any and all 
 cruisers icitJioiit limiL and those who have thus 
 (Read sec. 12,) lost by insui-ing have lyroved theii- 
 claims before the court constituted by the act, and 
 we ask to be ])rovided I'oi- in the same nnmue]*, dc- 
 diu'tin y from our claims all dicideads fiom profits 
 we may have received fi-oni the underwriters. A 
 court has been established under the act and now 
 exists to })ass u])on the merits of all claims coming 
 before it. AVe wlio have ])aid wai' ])remiunis, ask 
 to be permitted to go before that court and prove 
 and collect these claims without the intervention of
 
 11 
 
 iniy of tliese companies, or their attorneys, as our 
 guardians or legal advisers. The luxnr}^ is too expen- 
 sive to be profitable, and too uneertain to be desira- 
 ble. A mutual company is comj)osed of its policy- 
 holders. It lias no capital but that paid in as 
 premiums. Tiie officers, clerks, rents and other 
 expenses are paid from tliis fund. It hclongs en- 
 tirely to the policy-holder, and anything the com- 
 pany receives as a revenue is payable to the premium 
 j)a3'ers. You are told by the legal representatives 
 of these companies that as a company^ they have 
 nothing to do with the moneys tliey shall recover as 
 losses, but to pay them to the policj^-holders who 
 paid the premiums when the losses occurred less 
 the legal and other indefinite expenses, but 
 that tlie_y are entitled to receive them so as to 
 disburse them to the holders of policies of marine 
 as well as icar risks, and claim the right to collect 
 these moneys as stake-holders., so as to protect the 
 rights of the persons having marine risks; and yet 
 it is conceded that those mutual companies made 
 more money in profits fi'om the icar premiums re- 
 ceived than from those paying marine risks. 
 
 More than eigM millions of dollars of war pre- 
 miums have been paid to underwriters, while their 
 losses under, these risks are but $5,569,497.58, from 
 which they made a proht of more than ^2,000, (XJO, 
 a ]3ortion of which was paid back as profits, wliich 
 accounts for the fact that but $6,146,219.71, of war 
 premium claims liave been filed, the Atlantic 
 Mutual of New York, paying forty per cent, divi- 
 dends from its profits while the war risks continued. 
 
 The aggregate profits of marine insurance were 
 larger during the war than during any like 2^eriod 
 before or since, proving conclusively that in the 
 distribution of profits among the policy-holders, 
 
 . 425768
 
 12 
 
 tlie holders of marine risks have received more tlian 
 their fair sliare of profits. Oiig'lit tliis unequal 
 distribntion to be continned ? Tlie lioider of a 
 policy for ordinary marine risk has no claim before 
 3^ou. He suffered no loss by the acts of these 
 cruisers unadjusted, and because he was a sharer in 
 profits from a common fund to 7ils advantage ex- 
 tends his right only to a settlement which has taken 
 ])lace upon the basis of moneys re<'eived by the 
 companies in premiums and disbursed b}' them in 
 losses paid. They are not losers in any sense which 
 entitles them to receive any part of the fund in 
 question. 
 
 What rigid of guardianship liare the mutual 
 com])anies in the collectloit of these war premiums i 
 Every liability under the policy ceased more than 
 ten 3'ears ago. The single riglit of the policy- 
 holder to receive scrip dividends and profits from 
 the companies made from the receipt of these ])re- 
 miums has been satisfied b}' such payment, and the 
 policy has no longer an}- binding force or effect as 
 between the assui'er and assured. Tliepersons who 
 are entitled to receive this money from the compa- 
 nies asking for it are the representatives of the 
 companies and if the mutual com})anies had a prior 
 right to the fund the real owners are entitled to 
 receive it. 
 
 The ap])lication to ('ongress to indemnif}' the' 
 persons who paid these war premiums and its action 
 in regard to it being ])urely ex gratia growing out 
 of no legal right. Legishition creating the right 
 restores no rights or obligations to or against either 
 party under the policy of insuiance, and the com- 
 pany is in every legal sense a stranger to tlie rights 
 and interests of these peVsons which they may 
 acquire by the legislation asked for, to the ficiid In 
 question.
 
 13 
 
 For the reasons stated I respectfully ask that the 
 merchants wlio have paid these wai' piciiiiums and 
 for which they hav(^ received no I'euiiineration 
 wliatever, and by th(» payment of which t lie insu- 
 rance companies were enabled to declare large 
 dividends and largely increase their business, shall 
 be by 3^ou considered as being with othei' actual 
 suffei'ers oi loss fir.st oitltled to be })aid from the 
 Alabama claims fund Avliich may remain after the 
 payment to the nnderwriters of all their actual 
 losses as provided for in section 12 of the Act of 
 1873, relating to the Geneva Award, now in force.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALllOKxMA, LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 FE5 
 
 BHTD IDURt 
 JAN 5 11|i 
 
 0EC2 41969 
 
 Form L-n 
 2r>m-2,' i:)(n203) 
 
 l-WIVERSITY of CALIFORNU 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 AA 000 517 300 
 
 t 
 
 a 
 
 o — 
 
 plea^'e: do not remove 
 
 THIS BOOK CARdS 
 
 =3 Ml 
 
 University Research Library 
 
 a 
 
 » 
 
 8 
 it 
 » 
 
 a 
 t 
 s 
 
 B 
 V 
 
 u 
 » 
 s 
 
 « 
 
 £ 
 6 
 
 ^8 
 
 
 > 
 
 ^^1 
 
 
 lU 
 
 w