^r 
 
 
 i 
 
 ?■■ 
 
 
 ^ ,: .. 
 
 
 ta.. J, 
 
 \ 
 
 rt 
 
 A 
 
 ^^
 
 ^T" 
 
 The Alabama Claims. 
 
 i^ 
 
 #6^ Ury< 
 
 J^ SY]>TOPSIS 
 
 BY 
 
 T. L. CLINGMAN, 
 
 attorjXey for 
 
 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS. 
 
 vJA.:srXJA-I^Y 18, 1876- 
 
 WASrllNi'rrOH, D. C\: 
 
 ) m'qill a withekow, i'rinteus and SrKBEOryPKUK. 
 
 ') 1876.
 
 « « • 
 « 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 " - • • 
 
 • 
 
 
 «• 
 
 • • • . .• 
 
 * • 
 
 
 • • 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 • • 
 
 
 ♦• 
 
 . •• • •• • 
 
 • » • 
 
 
 • « 
 
 : ••• • • 
 
 • • 
 
 
 ••• 
 
 • «. -•• • 
 
 • • !,• • • 
 
 • • • •-• 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 • •• 
 
 • 
 • 
 
 • • • 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • •
 
 rx 
 
 4 ^' 
 
 ■> u 
 
 THE ALABAMA CLAIMS. 
 
 The act of Congress approved June the 23d, 1874, con- 
 tains a provision in the following words : 
 
 " 1^0 claim shall be admissible or allowed by the court 
 
 by or in behalf of any insurance company or insurer, either 
 
 in its or his own right, or as assignee or otherwise in the 
 
 right of a person or party insured, unless such claimant 
 
 shall show to the satisfaction of said court that during the 
 
 late rebellion the sum of its or his losses in respect to its 
 
 or his war risks exceeded the sura of its or his premiums 
 
 or other gains upon or in respect to such war risks ; and 
 
 in case of any such allowance, the same shall not be greater 
 
 ■ than such excess of loss." 
 
 \j^ Such a provision as the above seems so singular in itself 
 
 as to require explanation. If insurance companies or in- 
 
 ^ surers have a legal or equitable claim to a share of the fund 
 
 paid under the award at Geneva, it is difficult to see how 
 
 that right would be lost by its profits or losses in its g^w- 
 
 ^- eral business operations in that class of cases. 
 
 No one could successfully contest the claim of a mcr- 
 
 ^< chant or a hotel-keeper merely on the ground that in his 
 
 ^'-, general business outside of the transactions with him he 
 
 hud realized profits. Still less likely would an attorney, 
 
 , who had collected a sum of monev for a banking corpora- 
 
 "^ tion, be justified in withholding the money from hia client 
 
 . for the reason tiiat it had made profits in its general busi- 
 
 J^ ncss within the past four years. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the Government of the United 
 States should be the rightful owner, in every sense, of the 
 ^ sum of money awarded at Geneva, it might undoubtedly 
 ;; bestow such sums as it might think proper on corporations 
 ^-i or individuals. It strikes the mind as singular, however. 
 
 425772 
 
 V 
 
 1
 
 that among the many snfterers in the late civil war it 
 sliould select insurance companies as the object of its 
 bounty. It is still more surprising that it should have, as 
 other provisions of this act declare, selected those who 
 had sutfered from the acts of three ships especially named, 
 to the exclusion of all sufferers from the depredations of a 
 number of other ships equally destructive of the commerce 
 of the United States. But it is still more remarkable that 
 it should relieve those who were injured by the Shenandoah 
 after she left the British port of Melbourne, and rigidly 
 exclude the many who suffered from the action of the 
 same ship before she entered that port. The provisions of 
 the act in this view appear so extraordinary, not to say 
 whimsical, as to require explanation. 
 
 What are the real facts in the case? Was this money 
 paid to the Government of the United States for its own 
 use, or was the payment made to satisfy the claims of 
 others? 
 
 The fact is well known that the Government of the 
 United States did present certain claims for indirect 
 losses from the action of the Alabama and other Confed- 
 erate cruisers, "in the transfer of a large part of the Amer- 
 ican commercial marine to the British flag, in the en- 
 hanced payment of insurance, in the prolongation of the 
 war, and in the addition of a large sum to the cost of the 
 war, and the suppression of the rebellion." But these 
 "indirect claims" met with such decided opposition on 
 tlie part of Great Britain that it seemed for a time that 
 any settlement by arbitration might be defeated, unless 
 the United States should consent to withdraw those claims. 
 
 During the discussion, the Secretary of State, in a letter 
 to General Schenck, dated April 23, 1872, used this lan- 
 guage : 
 
 "Neither the Government of the United States, nor, so 
 far as I can hear, any considerable number of the American 
 people, have ever attached much importance to the indi- 
 rect claims, or have ever expected or desired any award of
 
 damages on their account. * * lu the correspondence, 
 I have gone as far as prudence would allow in intimating 
 that we neither desired nor expected any pecuniary award, 
 and that we should be content with an award; that a State 
 is not liable in pecuniary damages for the indirect results 
 of a failure to observe its neutral obligations." 
 
 At a subsequent period, before the Tribunal of Arbi- 
 tration, on the 15th of June, the United States presented 
 its Argument, while the British Argument was withheld, 
 the British Agent asked for an adjournment, in order that 
 the two Governments might arrive at some understanding 
 as to the indirect claims. 
 
 On June 19th the Arbitrators stated, "That after the 
 most careful perusal of all that has been urged on the part 
 of the Government of the United States, in respect to these 
 claims, they have arrived, individually and collectively, at 
 the conclusion that these claims do not constitute, upon 
 the principle of international law, applicable to such cases, 
 good foundation for an award of compensation or compu- 
 tation of damages between nations; and should, upon such 
 principles, be wholly excluded from the consideration of 
 the Tribunal in making its aw^ard, even if there was no dis- 
 agreement between the two Governments as to the compe- 
 tency of the Tribunal to decide thereon." {Correspondence 
 respeclbif) Geneva Arbitration^ ih 152.) 
 
 The same day the counsel of the United States advised 
 Mr. Davis, the Agent, that the statement of the Trii)unal, 
 in part quoted al)Ove, "must be received by the United 
 States as determinative of its judgment upon the questions 
 of public law involved." They therefore advised that the 
 United States "should announce to the Tribunal that the 
 said claims, covered by its opinion, will not be further in- 
 sisted upon before the Tribunal by the United States, and 
 may be excluded from all consideration by the Tribunal in 
 making its award." [Correspondence respecting the Geneva 
 Arbitration., p. 152.) 
 
 At a sui)sequent meeting of the Tribunal, Mr. Davis, 
 after receiving instructions from his Government, said:
 
 ((I 
 
 The declaration made by the Tribunal, individually 
 and collectively, respecting the claims presented by the 
 United States for the award of the Tribunal, for, first, the 
 losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine 
 to the British flag; second, the enhanced payments of 
 insurance; and, third, the prolongation of the war, and 
 the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the 
 suppression of the rebellion, is accepted by the President 
 of the United States as determinative of their judgment 
 upon the important question of public law involved. The 
 Agent of the United States is authorized to say, that con- 
 sequently the above-mentioned claims will not be further 
 insisted upon before the Tribunal by the United States, 
 and may be excluded from all consideration in any award 
 that may be made." {See Correspondence respecting Geneva 
 Arbilraiion, j^- lo^t- 
 
 On the 27tli of June, the representatives of Great Britain, 
 understanding thus from the Agent of the United States, 
 "That the several claims particularly mentioned in that 
 statement will not be further insisted upon before the Tri- 
 bunal by the United States, and may be excluded from all 
 consideration in any award that may be made, and assum- 
 ing that the Arbitrators will, upon such statement, think 
 fit now to declare that the said several claims are, and 
 from henceforth will be, wholly excluded from their con- 
 sideration, and will embody such declaration in their 
 protocol of this day's proceedings," &c., expressed their 
 satisfaction, and delivered their printed argument "with 
 reference to the other claims, to the consideration of 
 which, by the Tribunal, no exception has been taken on 
 the part of Iler Majesty's Government." 
 
 " Count Sclopis, in behalf of all the arbiti'ators, then de- 
 clared that the said claims for indirect losses, mentioned in 
 the statement by the agent of the United States on the 25th 
 in St., and referred to in the statement just made by the 
 agent of Her Britannic Majesty, are, and from henceforth, 
 wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal, 
 and directed the secretary to embody the declaration in the
 
 protocol of this day's proceedings." (Protocol, vii, of June 
 27, 1872.) 
 
 It is therefore indisputable that the claims of the United 
 States for indirect losses, including "the enhanced pay- 
 ments of insurance" {or war premiums) were wholly excluded 
 from the consideration of the Tribunal. ISTo lansuao-e that 
 could have been selected would have expressed this fact in 
 stronger terms. 
 
 The Tribunal then proceeded to consider the direct 
 claims, which included two heads, viz: 1st. The claims for 
 direct losses growing out of the destruction of vessels and 
 their cargoes by the insurgent cruisers. 2d. The national 
 expenditure in the pursuit of these cruisers. As to the sec- 
 ond class of these claims, the decision of the Tribunal was 
 as follows: 
 
 "Whereas, so far as relates to the particulars of the in- 
 demnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit 
 of the Confederate cruisers are not, in the judgment of the 
 Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general ex- 
 penses of the war carried on by the United States ; the Tri- 
 bunal is, therefore, of opinion, by a majority of three to 
 two voices, that there is no ground for awarding to the 
 United States any sum by way of indemnity under this 
 head." 
 
 The Tribunal proceeded to inquire which of the ships 
 Great Britain should be held responsible for on account of 
 her alleged negligence, and it was decided that she should 
 be held accountable for the acts of the Alabama, the Flor- 
 ida, and their tenders, and for the Shenandoali, from and 
 after her departure from Melbourne. 
 
 The representatives of the United States presented a 
 carefully prepared statement, embracing the names of the 
 sliips destroyed, with tlioir values, as well as of tliose of 
 their cargoes, and the names of their owners, &c. This list 
 specified the names of insurance companies, as well as of 
 individual claimants. Indeed, it will be seen from the pub- 
 lished correspondence of the Secretary of State that the 
 cases of claims of insurance eompanies were, from the early
 
 6 
 
 part of the war, presented and urged just as those of the 
 private owners were. 
 
 Before the arbitrators the commissioners of the United 
 States referred to the fact that it had been repeatedly set- 
 tled b}' judicial decisions, both in England and America, 
 that an insurer who had paid for a vessel as a total loss, was 
 subrogated to the rights of the original owner. In other 
 words, he became entitled to the " spes recwperandi" and 
 might fairly claim all that the insured owner could have 
 done if there had been no insurance on the property. 
 
 The British commissioners admitted that such was the 
 law of Great Britain, as well as of the United States, and 
 in their Counter Case the following language is used : 
 
 "The American Insurance Companies who have paid the 
 owners as for a total loss are, in our opinion, entitled to be 
 subrogated to the rights of the latter, according to the well- 
 known principle that an underwriter who has paid as for a 
 total loss, acquires the rights of the assured in respect of 
 the subject-matter of insurance. This principle was ex- 
 plained and acted on in the well-known English cases of 
 Randall v. Cochran, 1 Ves., Sen., 98, and The Quebec Fire 
 Insurance Company v. St. Louis, 7 Moore, P. C, 286, and 
 is well recognized by the courts of America. On the other 
 hand, it is equally clear that underwriters cannot be enti- 
 tled to anything more than the assured themselves, for the 
 claim of the former is founded on nothing else than their 
 title to be subrogated to the rights which the latter pos- 
 sessed, and which therefore cannot possibly be more ex- 
 tensive than the claim which the latter would be entitled 
 t(^ maintain. From these considerations two consequences 
 follow: In the lirst place, where the claimant is the insur- 
 ance company, and not the owner, compensation cannot 
 be due for any sum exceeding the amount of the actual 
 loss sustained by the owner, however much that sum may 
 fall short of the amount paid by the company by reason of 
 the property having been over-insured. In the second 
 place, wherever the owner puts forward a claim for his loss 
 at the same time that the insurance company also claims
 
 the money paid by them in respect of the same loss, such a 
 double claim must at once be absolutely rejected, since to 
 allow it would be in effect to sanction the payment of the 
 loss twice over." (British Counter Case, p. 135.) 
 
 In reply to the criticisms of the merits of the private 
 claims by the British Counter Case, the following words are 
 used in the United States Argument. 
 
 The claims now under discussion (excluding those for 
 increased war premiums) may be divided into two general 
 classes : 
 
 " Ist. Claims for the alleged value of property destroyed 
 by the several cruisers. 
 
 " 2d. Claims arising from damages in the destruction of 
 property, but over and above its value. 
 
 " Under the first class would be included (a) owners' . 
 claims for the values of vessels destroyed ; [b) merchants' 
 claims for the values of goods destroyed; (c) whalers and 
 fishermen's claims for the values of oil or fish destroyed ; 
 (d) passengers, officers, and sailors' claims for the values of 
 personal property destroyed ; (e) the claims of Insurance 
 Companies for the values of property destroyed, for which 
 they had paid the owners in insurance * * * * The 
 claims of Insurance Companies for the value of property 
 destroyed, for which they have paid the owners the insur- 
 ance, is the last division under the claims of the first class. 
 We readily admit that whenever the owner put forward a 
 claim for his loss at the same time that the Insurance Com- 
 pany also claims the money paid by them in respect of the 
 same loss, then only one value of the property destroyed 
 can be allowed, but we insist that in all such cases the 
 award should be equal to the full value of the property 
 destroyed. 
 
 " It was the intention of the United States, in jireparing 
 the list of claims to indicate whenever double claims of this 
 class occurred, when it was evident, upon a simple exam- 
 ination of the papers, that such double claims were made, 
 and it will be found that very few, if any, of such claims 
 exist, except in the case of sonic! of the whaling vossels
 
 8 
 
 which were destroj^ed by the Shencmdoah, there being none 
 of this class of double claims in the case of merchant ships 
 or property destroyed on merchant ships." [U. S. Argu- 
 ment^ p. 554.) 
 
 When the arbitrators proceeded to consider the detailed 
 statement of the values of the ships, their cargoes, &c., it 
 was seen that the estimate of the values as claimed by the 
 Agent of the United States was much higher than that 
 made by the experts on the side of Great Britain. The 
 United States claimed $14,437,143.51, with interest thereon 
 at seven per cent., as the gross sum that should be awarded. 
 
 The Agent of Great Britain claimed that the proper sum 
 to be awarded was $7,074,715, with such additional sum as 
 the Tribunal might give as interest. 
 
 At the session of the 30th of August, " the Tribunal hav- 
 ing discussed in general the award of a gross sum, requested 
 Mr. Steampfli, one of the arbitrators, to present for the 
 next conference copies of a synoptical table," which he 
 had prepared on the subject. (See Protocol, xxviii.) 
 
 At the session of September 2d, the Tribunal, by a ma- 
 jority of four to one, decided that interest should be ad- 
 mitted as an element in the calculation of a sum in gross. 
 Mr. Staempfii presented to the Tribunal the synoptical ta- 
 ble which he had prepared as a proposition for the determ- 
 ination of a sum in gross in the following words and 
 figures : 
 
 Estimate of 3Ir. Staempfii for the determination of a sum in 
 
 gross. 
 
 After the late British Allowance. Mean. 
 
 American Table. 
 
 Amount of claims $14,437,000 $7,074,000 $10,905,000 
 
 Expenditure in pursuit 6,735,000 940,000 Struck out. 
 
 Struck out 
 
 as such, 
 
 but for 
 
 wages 588,000 
 
 25 percent. 
 
 on the 
 values of 
 vessels 400,000 
 
 $11,893,000 
 
 Prospective profits and interrup- 
 tion of voyage 4,009,100
 
 9 
 
 Round sura $12,000,000 
 
 Interest from the 1st January, 1864, to the 
 
 15th September, 1872. 
 1. At 5 per cent, during eight years and eight 
 and one half months. 
 
 8 X $600,000=34,800,000 
 81 X 50,000= 425,000 
 
 5,225,000 
 
 17,225,000 
 
 Eventually one year's interest more 17,825,000 
 
 2. At 6 per cent, during eight years and eight 
 
 and one half months. 
 
 8 X S720,000=$5,760,000 
 8ix 60,000= 510,000 
 
 6,270,000 18,270,000 
 Eventually one year's interest more 18,990,000 
 
 3. At 7 per cent, during eight years and eight 
 
 and one half months. 
 
 8 X S840,000=$6,720,000 
 8ix 70,000= 595,000 
 
 7,315,000 19,315,000 
 Eventually one year's interest more 840,000 
 
 20,155,000 
 Round sum $20,000,000 
 
 At the same session, Sir Alexander Cockburn, as one of 
 the Arbitrators, presented a memorandum criticising the 
 estimate of Mr. Staempfli, and he also presented his own 
 estimate or table, as follows : 
 
 Table in reference to the estimate of Mr. Stacmpfli. 
 
 Total United States claim in the last revised 
 
 tables $14,437,143 
 
 2
 
 10 
 
 Necessary reduction to be made from the above 
 
 supposed total : 
 Double claims $1,682,243 
 
 New claims 1,450,000 
 
 One half i^ross freidit 503,576 
 
 3,635,819 
 
 Makins the total reduced claim-- 10,801,324 
 
 As against the British estimate of - 7,464,764 
 
 The mean of these two sums is-- 9,133,044 
 
 Add to this Mr. Staempfli's al- 
 lowance in lieu of prospec- 
 tive catch : 
 
 One year's wages 588,000 
 
 Twenty-live per cent, on the value 
 
 of vessels 400,000 
 
 988,000 
 
 $10,121,044 
 
 At the same session, " after a detailed deliberation, a 
 majority of the Tribunal, of four to one, decided, under 
 the Vllth article of the Treaty of Washington, to award in 
 gross the sum of $15,500,000, to be paid in gold, by Great 
 Britain to the United States, in the time and manner pro- 
 vided by the said article of the Treaty of Washington." 
 (See Protocol xxix.) 
 
 If, to the estimate of Sir Alexander Cockburn, there be 
 added interest at the rate of six per cent, for the period of 
 eight years, eight and one-half months, the sum will be 
 $15,409,285. It thus appears that the sum in gross actually 
 awarded was not $100,000 above this amount. An exam- 
 ination of the whole case shows conclusively that the award 
 was made to meet the individual losses, the detailed state- 
 ment of which was presented by the United States to the 
 Tribunal. 
 
 In his statement on the part of the United States as a 
 reason why all the items of individual losses should be cs-
 
 11 
 
 timated in the award, Mr, Davis spoke in the following 
 words : 
 
 "III. The United States make claim for all the undi- 
 vided shares of a ship, whether the owner of the share, 
 however small, makes claim or not, because the United 
 States will be obliged to indemnify all the owners, in case 
 the Tribunal shall accord a gross sum to the United States. 
 If this were not done there would be an evident injustice." 
 
 After the decision of the Tribunal had been made an- 
 nouncing the result, Mr. Davis, in his dispatch to Mr. Fish, 
 dated Paris, 2l8t of September, 1872, giving a report of 
 his action as agent of the United States, saj^s, (see Report, 
 as recently published, p. 10 :) 
 
 "The neutral Arbitrators and Mr. Adams, from the be* 
 ginning of the proceedings, were convinced of the policy 
 of awarding a sum in gross. 
 
 " For some weeks before the decision was given I felt 
 sure that the Arbitrators would not consent to send the 
 Case to Assessors until they should have exhausted all 
 efforts to agree themselves upon the sura to be paid. 
 
 " We therefore devoted our energies towards securing 
 such a sum as should be practically an indemnity to the 
 sufferers. Whether we have or have not been successful, 
 can be determined only by the final division of the sum." 
 
 Why was there an anxietj' felt to secure a sum in gross? 
 If a sum in gross should not ])e awarded, it was provided 
 by article 10 of the treaty that the cases should go to a 
 Board of Assessors, at which both Governments might be 
 represented by their counsel. As this board might sit for 
 three years it was felt on both sides desirable to avoid a 
 second tedious examination of so large a number of claims 
 to be canvassed and discussed by the agents of both Gov- 
 ernments. These reasons were assigned by the Secretary 
 of State and pressed on the attention of the representatives 
 of the United States, and finally [)revailcd to induce the 
 Tribunal to award the sum in gross. 
 
 Does the form of the award as thus made so chatigo its 
 character as to relieve the Government of its obligation
 
 12 
 
 to indemnify those for whose losses the money was un- 
 doubtedly paid by Great Britain ? Suppose that an attor- 
 ney who was claiming damages for the loss of a ship 
 should say to the court, that, as there were many owners 
 of the ship whose shares varied greatly ia amount, and 
 tlierefore the ascertaining the value of their several shares 
 would be very tedious, and delay the court for a long pe- 
 riod of timQ, and therefore he would be content if a sum 
 were awarded for the ship as a whole sufficient, however,, to 
 cover all the losses, and that he would out of this amount 
 be able to settle with his clients according to the value of 
 their several claims, and should the court award at his 
 request a sum in gross, would such attorney be authorized 
 to retain this money for his own use or bestow it on some 
 other clients whose cases he had recently lost? A mere 
 statement of such a case shows the absurdity of such a pro- 
 ceeding. Is the situation of the Government of the United 
 States in respect to the fund awarded really different in 
 substance and the principles of natural justice from the one 
 above stated? 
 
 But it has been said that the Government of the United 
 States cannot be an attorney for its citizens. To make it 
 appear that the Government was not in this transaction, 
 in substance and in fact, a representative, agent, guardian, 
 or attorney of its citizens, would require that a construc- 
 tion should be resorted to far more strict than that de- 
 manded upon the principles of the resolutions of 1798. 
 
 Chief Justice Kent, in the case of Gracie v. The New 
 York Insurance Companj^, in delivering the opinion of the 
 court, said: "If France should at any future period agree 
 to and actually make compensation for the capture and 
 condemnation in question, the Government of the United 
 States, to whom the compensation in the first instance 
 would be payable, would become trustee for the party hav- 
 ing the equitable title to the reimbursement; and this 
 would clearly be the defendants, (the underwriters,) if they 
 should pay the amount." 
 
 A number of authorities rnii'ht be found to this effect.
 
 13 
 
 With respect to these claims, the Government of the United 
 States forbade individuals to apply to Great Britain for 
 redress, and claimed the exclusive right to present thera. 
 President Grant, too, in his message of Decembers, 1870, 
 recommended Congress to make a settlement with these 
 private claimants, " so that the Government shall have the 
 ownership of the private claims as well as the responsible 
 control of all the demands against Great Britain." 
 
 After the confirmation of the Treaty at Washington, the 
 State Department called upon all its citizens having claims 
 known severally as " Alabama claims," to present them to 
 the Department of State. Its letter bears date September, 
 1871, and calls on all persons having these claims to pre- 
 sent, "to do so without delay," because "the time for 
 presenting the Case of the United States expires on the 
 16th of December next." 
 
 At its previous conference, with reference to this matter, 
 similar grounds were taken by the Government, and the 
 like language used. During the proceedings before the 
 Arbitrators with respect to all those claims, the Government 
 occupied a similar attitude. It seems difffcult to distin- 
 guish its case from that of a law firm that should in this 
 city advertise for business claims of a certain class, except 
 that the liability of the United States on the principles of 
 justice is greater, inasmuch as it possessed a power that 
 no law law firm has of preventing its citizens from pre- 
 senting their claims through any other agency than its 
 own. 
 
 The Government undoubtedly obtained this money by 
 presenting the claims of its citizens for injuries done them, 
 and insisted that insurers, who had paid for the property 
 destroyed, were entitled to stand in the position of the ori- 
 ginal owner. It was by including the claims of insurers 
 that nearly one-half the sum awarded was obtained. Can 
 it honestly now repudiate its former acts and refuse to pay 
 to those whose claims were in fact considered, estimated 
 for, and allowed as fully as any other class of (claimants? 
 
 Those op[)Osin'^^ tln' payuu-nt lo iimlriw lilcrs <I( ii.)iiiK-e
 
 14 
 
 corporations "that have made money during the war." 
 Corporations are composed of men, women, and children. 
 It has not hitherto been settled that men are so odious that 
 they are not permitted to receive money for which they 
 have given an equivalent, while women and children are 
 reo-arded as entitled to favor in the estimation of courts of 
 justice. How is it that their association in an incorporated 
 company should render them odious? 
 
 If an estimate could be made of the .profits of stockhold- 
 ers in all the corporations that have existed in the United 
 States for the last ten or twenty years, it is not probable 
 that they would exceed the average of all the different 
 kinds of industrial occupations of the country. It has been 
 said that a large majority of insurance companies have failed. 
 This is probably true. But nevertheless corporations are 
 useful, because they are instrumental in effecting results 
 that individual enterprise cannot accomplish. 
 
 A single one of these insurance companies insured prop- 
 erty of the value, for the year 1863, of $270,000,000; 1864, 
 $320,000,000; 1865, $380,000,000. 
 
 This large amount of property was in part kept afloat 
 by a marine insurance company. Without such aid a 
 large number of ships would probably have remained idle 
 in port, or been transferred to a foreign flag, because 
 owners would not have risked their loss, though they 
 were willing to pay something to a corporation that would 
 become responsible in case they were captured. 
 
 It has been proclaimed in debate, however, as a reason 
 for excluding insurance companies, that one of them might 
 receive out of the award more than a million and a half of 
 dollars. If so, however, it can only obtain a large sum 
 by showing that it has paid out a similar amount. It 
 has never been pretended that a banking corporation, or 
 an individual who advanced a large sura of money, was 
 not entitled to have it returned, on the same principles as 
 one who lent a small sum. If this corporation is entitled 
 to receive a large amount, it must be remembered that it 
 has a great numljer of shareholders, and that it has done a
 
 15 
 
 large business, and paid ont a great sum of money to those 
 whose ships were destroyed. Is it not therefore to stand, 
 as to its payments, on the same ground with an individual 
 who has insured a single ship and paid for its loss? 
 
 Why, then, should there be a discrimination against a 
 corporation, or an attempt to render it odious? In most 
 of the States of the Union, if not in all of them, it is re- 
 garded as just as much a crime to rob a bank as a hen 
 roost, and a conspiracy to defraud an insurance company 
 is punished just as a conspiracy to defraud an individual. 
 
 But, again, a persistent effort is made to divert so much 
 at least of this fund as was awarded to meet the claims 
 of insurance companies from that purpose, and bestow it 
 on those who paid enhanced rates of insurance, or " war 
 premiums," as they are frequently termed. It is an indis- 
 putable fact that these latter claims were presented at 
 Geneva; that they were earnestly urged, and rejected by 
 the Tribunal of Arbitrators; and it was expressly and in the 
 the most unequivocal language declared that their claims 
 were wholly inadmissible, and excluded from any allowance 
 in money that might be awarded. The fact that a suit 
 brought by an individual has been rejected by a court is 
 generally regarded as a sufficient reason why he should 
 not demand a sum of money that some other plaintiff has 
 recovered at the same term of the court. 
 
 These war premium men, however, are much eulogized 
 for their patriotism, and it is declared that but for them 
 the flag of the United States would not have been kept 
 afloat, and that the money in the hands of the Government 
 ought to be bestowed on tliem, rather than given over to 
 greedy and Bouiless corporations. How does the case really 
 stand between the two classes of claimants? 
 
 A patriotic individual resolves that he will keep the flag 
 of the United States afloat, and with that view secures a 
 ship and cargo worth twenty thousand dollars, and de- 
 termines to send them to sea; being, however, like John 
 Gilpin's wife, possessed ol' a iVugal mind, he determineH 
 that ho will not ni;ik(! ;ill this patriotic outlay at his own
 
 16 
 
 risk. lie thereupon goes to one of these insurance com- 
 panies, and may be supposed to address it in a straiu some- 
 thing after this fashion: 
 
 "Being a highly patriotic man, I am anxious that the 
 flag of my country should float on the high seas. I have 
 therefore provided a ship and cargo worth twenty thousand 
 dollars, which I propose to send abroad. But though 
 patriotism should be its own reward, it ought not to be ex- 
 pected to give money as well as itself to the public. Hence, 
 though I intend to send out this ship, I do not propose to 
 do it at my own pecuniary risk. You are a soulless cor- 
 poration, composed only of men, women, and children, 
 without a single spark of that patriotism that glows in my 
 bosom. Nevertheless I know that you comply with your 
 contracts. I understand that you will, if paid two and a 
 half per cent, of the value of the property, be responsible 
 for its value if lost either by negligence, storm, or the pub- 
 lic enemy. I send out twenty thousand dollars' worth, and 
 am willing to give you five hundred dollars to insure it 
 against all loss. It must, however, be understood between 
 us that the insurance must be large enough to cover not 
 only the property, but also the five hundred dollars I now 
 pay you, so that in case of loss of the ship 1 am to have 
 back my entire patriotic contribution !" 
 
 The agent of the insurance company may be supposed 
 to reply in such words as these: "It is lamentably true 
 that we are only a soulless corporation, incapable, therefore, 
 of a patriotic emotion, but we greatly admire your patri- 
 otism, and as you are willing to risk five hundred dollars, 
 we will risk twenty thousand dollars ! " 
 
 Some months possibly after this bargain has been exe- 
 cuted, the insurer learns that his ship has been lost, de- 
 mands payment, and receives twenty thousand five hundred 
 dollars from the soulless corporation, and is in addition 
 thereto greatly applauded for his patriotism. 
 
 The insurance compan}^, through the representatives of 
 the United States, presents its claim for the value of the 
 ship lost and paid for; the sum is computed and allowed in
 
 17 
 
 raakiug up the award, and actually paid over, and now it 
 is proposed to withhold the money from the company, and 
 give it, instead, to the war 'premium men as a compensation 
 for their patriotism. 
 
 It is argued, however, that in those eases where the ships 
 were not captured the war premiums have not been re- 
 turned. It is well known, however, that merchants, in 
 estimating the cost of their goods, include not only the 
 amount paid abroad for them, but also the cost of freight, 
 insurance, and tarifi' duties, and in their sales add a profit 
 on all these items. While the insurances amounted to 2 or 
 3 per cent., the tarifl" taxes were often 50 or 75 per cent. 
 All these amounts have to be repaid by the consumers, 
 with added profits. Those who paid 1^ per cent, addi- 
 tional on account of the war risk, probably made the con- 
 sumers of the country pay two or three times as much, just 
 as hotels, because currency is t&n or fifteen per cent, below 
 par, add 100 or 150 per cent, to their former prices. 
 
 It has been urged, however, that those men, by paying 
 this additional per cent,, which did not, on the average, 
 amount to 1| per cent., were placed at a disadvantage as 
 against foreign ships. The same thing, however, may be 
 said by importing merchants with respect to the tarifi:' du- 
 ties. They are compelled to pay filty or one hundred per 
 cent, on their goods imported, and then compete with 
 home manufacturers who pay no duty at all. Mr. A. T. 
 Stewart or II. B. Claflin might, with a vastly greater show, 
 boast of their patriotism, and refer to the large sums they 
 paid into the treasury to support their country. They, as 
 well as the war premium men, are reimbursed by the con- 
 sumers of the whole country. 
 
 It has already been stated that these war premium claims 
 were rejected by the tribunal at Geneva. Something oc- 
 curred there, however, which shows most strikingly the 
 injustice of the attempt to exclude the insurance comi)anies, 
 on the ground that they made profits by reason of the war 
 premiums. After it had been settled that the capital of the 
 losses should be paid, the question arose whether the tri- 
 3
 
 18 
 
 bunal, in its award of a gross sura, should include interest. 
 Sir Eouudell Palmer, the British counsel, presented an 
 earnest argument against the allowance of interest, in 
 which he made this point: 
 
 "With respect to the insurance companies, it must be 
 remembered that, as against the losses which they paid, 
 they received the benefit of the enormus war premiums 
 which ruled at that time ; and that these were the risks 
 against which they indemnified themselves (and it cannot 
 be doubted, so as to make their business profitable upon 
 the whole) by those extraordinary premiums. "Would it 
 be equitable now to reimburse them not only the amount 
 of all these losses, but interest thereon, without taking into 
 account any part of the profits which they so received?" 
 {Supplt. to the London Gazette of October 4, 1872,;?. 4728.) 
 
 How did such a suggestion strike the minds of the coun- 
 sel of the United States? That it embodied a degree of 
 assurance that was amusing from its absurdity is evident 
 from the language used in reply: 
 
 "We may also lay aside the suggestions prejudicial to 
 the allowance of interest on the claims which, by subroga- 
 tion or assignment, have been presented by the insurers^ 
 who have indemnified the original sufferers. So far as 
 Great Britain and this Tribunal are concerned, who the 
 private sufl^erers are,, and who represent them, and whether 
 they were insured or not, and have been paid for their in- 
 surance, are questions of no importance. But it is worth 
 while to look this argument in the face for a moment. 
 Some of the sufferers by the depredations of the Alabama, 
 the Florida, and the Shenandoah were insured by American 
 underwriters. These sufferers have collected their indem- 
 nity from the underwriters, and have assigned to them 
 their claims. The enhanced premiums of insurance on 
 general American commerce have presumptively enriched 
 the insurance companies. Great Britain should have the 
 benefits of these profits, and the underwriters, at least, 
 should lose the interest on their claims. It is difficult to 
 Ray whether the private or the public considerations which
 
 19 
 
 enter into this syllogism are most illogical. Certain!}' we 
 did not expect that the ' enhanced paijment of insurance,' 
 which Great Britain could not tolerate, and the Tribunal 
 has excluded as too indirect, as growing out of the acts of 
 the cruisers, to be entertained lohen presented by the mer- 
 chants who had paid them, were to be brought into play by 
 Great Britain itself as direct enough in the general busi- 
 ness of underwriting to reduce the indemnity on insured 
 losses, which, if uninsured, they would have been entitled 
 to." {Sapplt. to Lon. Gaz., Ocf. 4, 1872, p. 4737.) 
 
 If, then, the enhanced p)remiums were, at the instance 
 of Great Britain, rejected, and absohitely excluded l)y tlic 
 Tribunal, and then, when afterwards suggested by the 
 British counsel as a ground for not paying interest merely 
 to insurance companies, for the reason that they had made 
 profits out of these premiums, and the counsel of the Uni- 
 ted States indignantly rejected such a consideration, can 
 our Government now, r)n the principles of common fair- 
 ness, refuse to pay over to the insurance companies not 
 only the interest, but the priiicipal itself? In other words, 
 when the British counsel suggested that though these in- 
 surance companies ought to have back their priiicipal, yet, 
 as they had made money out of war premiums, they should 
 not be paid also interest thereon, and our Government re- 
 jected the plea with disdain, can it now refuse upon this 
 very ground to pay not only the interest, but even the 
 pi-incipal ? 
 
 Among the pretexts assigned for not paying the money 
 to those for whom it was awarded, it has been suggested 
 that the United States has never paid oft' the "French 
 spoliation claims" arising from the acts of the French 
 cruisers prior to the year 1800. But in that case no 
 money was jiaid to our Government l)y France. Our au- 
 thorities admitted that the sufterers on our side ought lo 
 be reimburscfl for their losses, and promised when able io 
 do so. Had money tlien been received it would undoubt- 
 edly have been paid over. This is said because, when in 
 1831, by reason ot the treaty with France, negotiated by
 
 20 
 
 Wrn. C. Rives, 25,000,000 of francs was obtained for spo- 
 liations since the year 1800, tliat money was paid over to 
 tlie individual suflerers. If these precedents are referred 
 to, the last one, which in its features resembles the present 
 case, clearly ought to be followed. At any rate, the first 
 one affords no justification for a present refusal. No trus- 
 tee could excuse himself from paying money received for 
 others by alleging that on some former occasion he de- 
 clined to pay on the ground that no assets had in fact been 
 realized by him. 
 
 In a case like the present one between individuals, there 
 can be no doubt but that the insurers could recover in a court 
 of justice. The United States cannot be sued as an indivi- 
 dual might be. Ought this immunity to be regarded as 
 a justification for refusal? Occasionally an individual is 
 heard to say that he has so arranged his property that he 
 does not fear suits and judgments against him. Ought 
 the United States to place itself in such an attitude? 
 
 What Great Britain might think of such a trans tction is 
 u secondary consideration. If she were an enemy, she 
 might well be expected to point her finger at us and say to 
 the world, " See what the Great Republic has done. It 
 exacted money from us to reimburse such of its citizens as 
 had paid for ships destroyed by reason of our negligence; 
 and now, after getting the money from us for that purpose, 
 it refuses to pay them, and applies the money to its own 
 uses!" What other nations think of us is undoubtedly a 
 matter of consequence to us, but it is vastly more import- 
 ant for us to do justice to our own citizens and thus main- 
 tain their respect for the Government of their country. 
 
 If, in addition to the reasons assigned for obtaining an 
 award for a sum in gross, the agents of our Government de- 
 sired to veil their disappointment on account of the rejection 
 of the claims of the Government, by such a form of award, 
 at least our own citizens ought not to be made to suflier for 
 this. As our representatives had the benefit of such a 
 soothing balm to their wounded feelings, they ought to be
 
 21 
 
 only the more willing to do com[)lete justice to those whose 
 claims enabled them to alleviate their own regrets. 
 
 Five per cent, of the sum recovered, equal to $775,000, 
 ha:^ already been retained by the Government to reimburse 
 it for its expenses in conducting the arbitration and consti- 
 tuting a board here to pass on the claims. This sum is 
 an)ple for the purpose, and in fact more than sufficient to 
 nieet all the expenses incident to the transaction. 
 
 Upon an examination of the entire case, it will be seen 
 that— 
 
 Ist. The claims of the United States, as a Government, 
 were rejected, except that there was an allowance for two 
 or three of its own ships (of little value) destroyed, that 
 came in under the head of direct losses. 
 
 2d. Tiiat a sum in gross was awarded to avoid the delay 
 and trouble of having the individual cases re-examined 
 before a board of assessors, where each Government would 
 be contestants as to every single claim. That sum in gross 
 was made up by estimating the amount of the individual 
 claims, with interest added mainly, and that the excess 
 above this amount was less than one hundred thousand 
 dollars, which would seem, therefore, to be all that the 
 Government could fairly claim as subject to its disposition 
 at its own option. 
 
 3d. That in making up the amount of individual claims, 
 those of insurance companies were included just as those 
 of individuals; and that the suggestion by the British 
 consul that, as they had made profits out of the war pre- 
 miums [laid them, at least the interest might be withheld 
 on that ground, was indignantly and disdainfully rejected 
 by our represenaativea. 
 
 4th. That the ample sum of $775,000, in gold, has been 
 retained to reimburse the Government lor its exitenses in 
 prosecuting the claims and distributing the amounts due to 
 the several losers. 
 
 It would seem, therefore!, that an A(;t similar to the 
 bill offered liy Senator ('onkling ought to be passcil, under 
 
 4257?ii
 
 09 
 
 which the board now in session mio:ht consider the claima 
 of insurers as they do those of individuals. Whatever 
 suras might be awarded to these various companies would 
 be applied by them as the laws of the several States under 
 which they have been chartered already provide. 
 
 It is now evident that after all the cases, both of indi- 
 vidual losses and insurers, are allowed, there will be a large 
 surplus of the fund remaining. It, with accumulated in- 
 terest, can be little, if any, less than 120,000,000 in currency 
 value. It is doubtful if all the claims estimated for at 
 Geneva, as they are likely to be cut dov> n by the present 
 board, will amount to more than ten millions. Certainly 
 it is apparent that the surplus will amount to six or eight 
 millions. 
 
 When this has been ascertained, it will be for our Gov- 
 ernment to decide whether it will return this excess to 
 Great Britain, as an individual does an overplus of money 
 paid by mistake, or whether it will retain it in the Treas- 
 ury for the benefit of the consumers of the country gen- 
 erally who sustained losses by the vs'ar. If it should re- 
 gard this last suggestion as inconsistent with its dignity, it 
 might divide the surplus among such enterprises as the 
 Centennial celebration, and the Wiishington and Lincoln 
 monuments, or it may even, if it thinks fit, bestow the 
 money upon such other classes of its citizens as claim to 
 have been especially injured during the war, or at least who 
 have shown the greatest anxiety to possess it. 
 
 Note. 
 
 Gentlemen who may not have leisure to examine the 
 different volumes published will, besides other able argu- 
 ments, find the subject fully treated in the speeches of 
 Senator Thurman, delivered in the Senate May 11, 1874, 
 and of the Hon. Lyman Tremaiu, in the House, June 9, 
 1874. To this last speech is appended a statement era- 
 bracing the numerous vessels with their cargoes, their val- 
 ues, and the claimants for indemnity.
 
 3 1158 01288 4192 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILIT 
 
 " lip I llll I! II! Ill I I II ll{ II II I III I I III 11 
 
 AA 000 518 946 9 
 
 I II
 
 ■/^ 
 
 >>■::. . Vi^ 
 
 X