2.3S 
 
 r8?6e 
 
 A 
 
 
 A= — .' 
 A — g 
 
 ?— i 
 5— i 
 
 
 Collection of Speeches in 
 
 Congress on the Geneva Av;ard 
 
 8 
 
 ;= i
 
 AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 '^ 
 
 i^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 '*
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENEVA AWARD. 
 
 The plain and common rules of honesty and fair dealing are as obligatory 
 in arbitraments between nations as between individuals. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. ELIJAH WARD, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 ^AY 23, 1876. 
 
 Our country obtained the money through the award of a great international 
 
 court representing the leading civilized nations, with the hope not only 
 
 of solving the difficulties which then existed, but of establishing a 
 
 precedent which wrnild tend to promote human progress by 
 
 substitutingjust and honorable arbitrament for settlements 
 
 through brute force and the horrors of war. We are 
 
 bound to respect the rulings of the court; and 
 
 those whose good opinion is best worth 
 
 deserving will judge us by the disposal 
 
 we make of the funds committed 
 
 to our charge. 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 1876.
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENEVA AWARD. 
 
 The plain and common rules of honesty and fair dealing are as obligatory 
 in arbitraments between nations as between individuals. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. ELIJAH WARD, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 yVlAY 23, 1876. 
 
 Our country obtained the money through the award of a great international 
 
 court representing the leading civilized nations, with the hope not only 
 
 of solving the difficulties which then existed, but of establishing a 
 
 precedent which would tend to promote human progress by 
 
 substituting j us t and honorable arbitrament for settlements 
 
 through brute force and the horrors of war. We are 
 
 bound to respect the rulings of the court; and 
 
 those whose good opinion is best worth 
 
 deserving will judge us by the disposal 
 
 we make of the funds committed 
 
 to our charge. 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 1876.
 
 I <■ I
 
 TO 
 
 I 
 
 '1/ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^' 
 
 \J 
 
 a; 
 
 e- 
 
 Distribution of tlie Geneva ATravd. 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. ELIJAH WAHD. 
 
 The Honse having resolved itself into Committee of the whole on the State of 
 the Union, ilr. Si'iikgeu in the Chair, and proceeded to consider the bill making 
 \ appropriations for the Indian Department — 
 Mr. Ward said : 
 "■ jj Mr. Chairman: Before proceeding with the remarks which I pro- 
 
 ^ pose npou the distribution of the award made by the tribunal at 
 ^ Geneva for losses sustained liy citizens of the United States, I ask 
 J^ the Clerk to read a paper which I send to the desk. 
 The Clerk read as follows : 
 
 > To the honorable tlie Senate and Ilouse of Representatives of the United States of Amer- 
 ^ ica in Congress assembled : 
 
 ^ The undersifoied, marine underwriters, owners of claims hy reason of which the 
 
 \ money paid by Groat Britain was awarded by the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva, 
 
 'j^ respectfully remonstrate against the passage of the House bill No. 2C85, reported to 
 
 ~\ the House of Representatives by Mr. Loitn, from tlie Judiciary Committoo. The pro- 
 
 > posed bill disregards the decisions and proceedings of tlio tribunal in tlio rejection 
 ^ and aUowanco of claims, denies or ignores the Just rights of lawful owners of prop- 
 erty tlie value of whicli entered into the award, and fails to .satisfy the trust, duty, 
 and obligation of the Government of the United States toward those upon or by 
 
 vj rea.son of whose legal rights it obtained the award andcoOectod the money. And 
 the provi.-tion for admitting tlieso rightful chiiniants to a .share of a supposed sur- 
 jdus, afttrr bc.ntowal of the fiinil upon invalid and improperly preferred claims, 
 
 t^ which were wholly rejected by the tribunal and are necessarily indeliuito in amount, 
 does not in anywi.se obviate or correct the injustice. 
 
 \ E.ich of your petitioners, which is a mutual society, further respectfully pro- 
 
 tests against bestowal of the monej- of the society upon what are termed war-pre- 
 mium clainiant.i, who do not embrace but a fragment of its dealers, aii<l who do em- 
 brace strangers not flealing with it at nil. Such a disposition of the money would 
 not only bo in disregard of just and legal right, but would violate the fundamental 
 contract entitling each member to his just propoition of the common reclamations. 
 It would alsoniin;;le and unjustly confnsi! the ])roi)eity of one .society audits mem- 
 bership with that of nuothor society and its membership. 
 
 426167
 
 Tonr remonstrants respectfully submit that the bill reported on IGth March last 
 from the Judiciary Committee, by Mr. Knott, provides for what is demanded by 
 right and justice and the honor of the nation. And they ask that it maybe passed. 
 Dated New York, April 4, 167G. 
 
 ATLANTIC MUTUAL ES"S. CO,, 
 
 By Charles Dennis, Vice-President. 
 COMMERCIAL MUTUAL IXS. CO., 
 
 By Saml. Dkake Smith, President. 
 UKION MUTUAL INS. CO., 
 
 By r. S. Lathop, President. 
 MERCANTILE MUT. INS. CO., 
 
 By Edwaud "Walter, President. 
 SUN MUTUAL INS. CO., 
 
 By J. P. Paulisox, President. 
 NEW YORK irUTUAL INS. CO., 
 
 By T. B. Blucher, Jr., Vice-President, 
 PACIFIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., 
 
 By Jno. K. Myers, President. 
 THE GREAT WESTERN INS. CO., 
 
 By Feed. Motz, President. 
 
 Mr. WAED. Mr. Chairman, at the request of many of my constit- 
 uents, M-ho are deeply interested, and in accordance with my own 
 sense of right and duty, I present to the House as briefly and dis- 
 tinctly as practicable my views on the important subject of the dis- 
 tribution of the funds awarded by the tribunal of arbitration at Ge- 
 neva. In my opinion the length of the discussion regarding it is to 
 be attributed rather to the magnitude of the amount involved than to 
 any intrinsic difficulty in luiderstandiug or determining the princi- 
 ples of law and justice so far as they are applicable to this case. 
 
 During the war various insurance companies and private claim- 
 ants sent memorials to the Department of State, setting forth their 
 demands against Great Britain for losses growing out of the destruc- 
 tion of vessels and their cargoes by the cruisers of the insurgents, and 
 requested the interposition of the Government of the United States 
 in their behalf. The imderwriters, confidently relying on the ulti- 
 mate protection of their rights by their country, from time to time, 
 as they paid for vessels and cargoes destroyed by the cruisers, com- 
 municated to the State Department full, formal proofs of the facts 
 and of the value of the losses. The Department through the Hon. 
 William H. Seward, then Secretary of State, punctiliously (as was his 
 duty) replied to each of the statements thus made, and transmitted 
 the claim "to the United States minister at London, with a view to 
 such reparation as may be justly due." 
 
 Afterward, when the war was over, the Government, through the 
 Department of State, issued an official notice, dated September 22, 
 I860, calling upon "citizens of the United States having claims 
 against foreign governments, not founded on contracts," to forward 
 them to that Department, urgently a.sked compliance " without de- 
 lay," and accompanied the notice with rules for thcrguidance of ap-
 
 plicaiits, directing the insertion in each claim of a request " for the 
 interposition of this Government with the foreign government against 
 ■which the claim is presented." In accordance with the trust thus 
 confided to our Government by the sufferers, the claims were duly- 
 presented to the government of Great Britaiu and suhsequeutly to 
 the tribunal at Geneva. 
 
 In pursuance of the same line of manifest duty, reqftiring every 
 government to aftord due protection to its citizens or subjects, Mr. 
 Fish, as Secretary of State, replied to letters inclosing claims of 
 the class already described, promised that his Department would 
 " present to the tribunal at Geneva, to be taken into account in es- 
 timating the sum to be paid to the United States, all claims growing 
 out of. the acts of the several vessels which have given rise to the 
 claims generally known as the Alabama claims," and requested that 
 they might be presented in due time. 
 
 The claims were duly presented by our Government to the tribunal 
 at Geneva, in accordance with the treaty of Washington. Through- 
 out all the proceedings they were uniformly treated as the claims of 
 private parties, who on their part placed implicit, unquestioning trust 
 and confitlence in the due protection and good faith and integrity of the 
 Government. All doubt or question as to their rights or the disposal 
 of the funds is an after-thought, having no origin iu the tribunal and 
 contrary to its intentions and conclusions. 
 
 In formally submitting its case to the tribunal, the Government of 
 the United States iilaced first in the general statement of the claims 
 for which it asked reparation "the direct losses growing out of the 
 destruction of vessels and their cargoes by the insurgent cruisers." 
 The other injuries for which compensation was sought were — 
 
 The national expenditure in tlie pursuit of those cruisers ; 
 
 The loss in the trausfer of the American commercial marine to the 
 British flag ; 
 
 The enhanced payments of insurance ; 
 
 The prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the 
 cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion. 
 
 Great Britain objected to the presentation of the three latter classes 
 of claims, and refused to proceed with the arbitration unless they were 
 withdrawn. The United States refused to withdraw thorn. A failure 
 of the arbitration was imminent. At tliis crisis, the president of the 
 tribunal, on behalf of all the arbitrators, announced tliat they, after 
 the most careful perusal of all that had been said on the part of the 
 Govenimcnt of the United States in respect to these classes of claims, 
 had "arrived individually and collectively at the conclusion that 
 tliesc claims do not constitute, upcm the j)rinciplcs of international 
 law applicable to sucli cases, good foundation for an award of com- 
 pensation or computation of damages between nations, and should
 
 6 . 
 
 upon such principles bo wholly cxcludcil from the consideration of the 
 tribunal in making its award." The United States authorized their 
 ageut to state that they accepted this declaration as determinative 
 of the judgment of the arbitrators on the important question of pub- 
 lic law involved, and that these classes of claims might be excluded 
 from consideration in any award that might be made. 
 
 Subsequently, by protocol 27, dated August 29, 1872, a majority of 
 the tribunal decided to reject the claims for expenditures incurred in 
 pursuit of the cruisers, on the ground that they were comprised in 
 the cost of the war. 
 
 Thenceforth there remained only for consideration by the tribunal 
 the claims for direct losses growing out of the destruction of vessels 
 and their cargoes by the insurgent cruisers. The basis of the award 
 was further and distinctly narrowed down by the tribunal to the pri- 
 vate losses growing out of the destruction of vessels and their car- 
 goes by the acts of the Alabama, the Florida, and their tenders, and 
 the Shenandoah after she left the j)ort of Melbourne. In accordance 
 with this decision the arbitrators requested the Government of the 
 United States to furnish them with definite information as to the 
 amount of such losses, and, complying with the request, on the 19th 
 of August, 1872, a schedule was presented on behalf of our Govern- 
 ment enumerating specifically the vessels destroyed by the cruisers 
 for whose acts Great Britain was held to be liable, showing the value 
 of each vessel so destroyed and of her cargo, as proved by the claims 
 filed for it, including those of the insurance companies. 
 
 The judgment of the tribunal was that there had been a violation 
 of the obligations of neutrality on the part of Great Britain ; that she 
 was consequently " responsible for the American shii^s which were 
 destroyed by the vessels in question." In view of this decision, the 
 only remaining duty of the tribunal was either to ascertain and 
 award to the United States such a sum in gross as was deemed suffi- 
 cient to cover those private losses, as it was empowered to do by the 
 seventh article of the treaty, or to remit the duty of auditing each 
 claim for the losses to a board of assessors, as provided in article 10. 
 The former was deemed the most satisfactory course. Its adoption 
 waa requested on the part of this country, and the gross sum of 
 $15,500,000 was accordingly awarded to the United States. The ma- 
 jority was four to one. The award, of course, included alike such of 
 the destroyed vessels as were insured and those which were uninsured. 
 In determining what sum in gross should be awarded, the tribunal con- 
 sidered the claims on the proofs submitted to it, those of the insu- 
 rance companies being the most conspicuous among the claims thus 
 submitted. 
 
 The Unite<l States have now received the money, have admitted 
 that it is not their own, and established a special court for its dis-
 
 tribution ; but have closed its doors against every insurance company 
 Tvbicli cannot show tliat its whole business during the four years of 
 the war, so far as the war risks were concerned, was unprofitable. 
 
 At this point it becomes necessary to consider the principles on 
 which marine insurance is conducted among commercial nations. It 
 has always been regarded as a proposition thoroughly established, 
 that whatever is recovered of the ship or cargo insured is the prop- 
 erty of the insurer who has j)aid the original owner the value of it. 
 It would be superfluous to spend time in proving this undeniable 
 proposition. Daniel Webster said of it : 
 
 There is no more universal maxim of law and justice througliout tlie civilized and 
 commercial world than that an underwriter who has paid a loss on ship or mer- 
 chandise to the owner is entitled to whatever may be received from the property. 
 His right accrues by the very act of payment. And if the property or its proceeds 
 be afterward recovered in whole or in part, whether the recovery be from the sea, 
 from captors, or from the justice of foreign states, such recovery is for the benefit of 
 the underwriter. 
 
 It was tipon this principle that the claims of our people to repara- 
 tion for the British violations of the laws of neutrals were advanced 
 by our Government. On the part of Great Britain the justice of our 
 case thus urged was distinctly admitted in the words — 
 
 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 ac- 
 quires the rights of the assured in respect of the subject-matter of insurance. 
 
 The principle of marine insurance requiring that the parties who 
 have paid the owners in full for their losses shall have whatever 
 may be afterward recovered is seen, even on slight reflection, to be 
 founded on morality and justice. It resembles that involved where 
 payment of a note is guaranteed for a pecuniary consideration, and, the 
 maker refusing to pay, the note is paid by the guarantor, but after- 
 ward collected from the maker. Obviously the guarantor who haa 
 paid the owner in full is entitled to all that is recovered. 
 
 Or, to take an illustration yet more closely analogous to the case in 
 point, a vessel fully insured does not arrive at the port when she 
 is expected. The parties who have agreed to pay for her in case of 
 loss honorably fulfill their engagement, and fully indemnify the own- 
 ers. Ultimately the vessel, having been detained by unforeseen 
 causes, comes to port. To whom does she belong ? Manifestly not 
 to the original owners. They have been paid, and in law and justice 
 have transferred their claim to those who paid them. The risk has 
 l>een run, but there has b(!«n no loss. Yet further from all right 
 would it be for any third party, even the United States, to step in 
 and, by the power of force, give the vessel to other parties. 
 
 We are not approacliing the subject of the disposal of the amount 
 paid to us ae if the money were our own, to be given a« wc choose.
 
 Two-thirds of it remain undistributed. It was awarded for specific 
 purposes and for no others, and the money was paid to the Govern- 
 ment of our country for parties whose claims were admitted to be 
 just and who had confided them to the Government as its best and 
 truest trustee. 
 
 The bill reported by the majority of the Judiciary Committee makes 
 provision for three classes of claims. It provides : 
 
 That the first class shall be for claims directly resulting from damage done on 
 the high seas by confederate cruisers during the late rebellion, including vessels 
 and cargoes attacked on the high seas, although destroyed within four miles of 
 the shore, except as provided for in section 11 of said chapter 459. The second 
 class shall be for claims for the payment of premiums for war risks, whether paid 
 to corporations, agents, or individuals, after the sailing of any confederate cruiser. 
 The third class shall be for claims for sums actually paid for insured property de- 
 stroyed on the high seas by such confederate cruisers, except sums for which 
 judgments have been entered under section 12 of said chapter. 
 
 That judgments entered in the first class shall be paid before judgments of the 
 second class are paid ; and judgments of the second class shall be paid before judg- 
 ments of the third class are paid. If the sum of money so unappropriated shall be 
 insuflicient to pay the judgments of the first class, they shall bo paid according to 
 the proportions wliich they severally bear to the whole amount of such unappro- 
 priated sum. If such sum shall be suflBcient to pay the judgments of the first class, 
 and not sufficient to pay the judgments of the second class, the latter judgments 
 shall be paid according to the proportions which they severally bear to the residue 
 of such unappropriated sum. If such sum shall be sufficient to pay the judgments 
 of the first and second classes, and not sufficient to pay the judgments of the third 
 class, they shall be paid according to the proportions which they severally bear to 
 the residue of such unappropriated sum after the payment of the judgments of the 
 first and second classes. 
 
 The Geneva tribunal adjusted only the liability of Great Britain 
 for the admitted depredations committed by the Florida, Alabama, 
 and Shenandoah after leaving Melbourne, and their tenders, the Tus- 
 caloosa, Clarence, Tacony, and the Archer, and excluded from consid- 
 eration, in the award of damages, the Georgia, Sumter, Nashville, and 
 other exculpated cruisers. In opposition to this decision, the bill 
 allows to be presented claims resulting from damage done on the high 
 seas by all " confederate cruisers during the late rebellion," without 
 the limitation imposed by the arbitrators and in direct conflict with 
 the intent and decision of the chosen tribunal. 
 
 In equally bad faith is the provision allowing claims for the pay- 
 ment of the premiums on war risks, which were distinctly ruled out 
 by the tribunal. This ruling was recognized and accepted by the 
 agent and counsel who represented our Government at Geneva ; and, 
 to make yet more glaring the enormity of the proposed bill, the 
 claims of the insurance companies, which seem to come clearly within 
 the award, are placed in the last class, without possibility of pay- 
 ment after the wrongful demands, excluded by the tribunal but 
 placed by the bill in the first and second classes, have been satisfied.
 
 9 
 
 The majority of the Committee say, "with an evident desire to 
 palliate the transparent injustice they suggest inflicting on the in- 
 surance companies, that the first class of claims for •which provision 
 is made in this hill will not, they think, exceed §1,500,000, and the 
 second class §5,000,000, leaving $4,000,000 for the insurers. A signifi- 
 cant commentary on these estimates is that the chairman of the Ju- 
 diciary Committee in the last House, who urged the same interests aa 
 have priority in the report made by the majority of the present com- 
 mittee, in answer to a question by another honorable member, replied 
 that the bill then under consideration, and which is now a law, would 
 require only $3,000,000 to satisfy the claims for which it provided. 
 As matter of fact it has taken between eight and nine millions. The 
 probability is that the first two claims for which provision is made in 
 the bill reported by the committee would swell in larger proportions. 
 
 It would be difficult to find in the whole history of pernicious leg- 
 islation a precedent more dangerous to public and private integrity 
 than the perversion of the funds our country has obtained from Great 
 Britain for specific purposes, wliich were admitted to be just, to other 
 purposes for which it was not and never would have been awarded. 
 There is no doubt how the courts would decide, and I regret that a 
 knowledge that no court in equity would reject the doctrine of subro- 
 gation as applied to the insurance companies, should be assigned as a 
 reason why Congress ought to take the matter into its own hands 
 and make its own will the law. It is bad enough that Congress should 
 disregard settled princijiles and rules as to the rights of property, but 
 that such a doctrine as this is avowed in open debate in this House is 
 deeply to be deplored. Having called to our aid in settling the claims 
 of our citizens against the British government men of the most pro- 
 found legal knowledge and the highest character among other lead- 
 ing nations of the world, tlie attention of civilized mankind is di- 
 rected toward us. The reputation as well as the honor and honesty 
 of our country is at stake, and ,if wo fail in our duty, wo shall bo 
 deemed now and througli future history to have added publicly and 
 38 a nation a portentous illustration to the already long catalogue of 
 the too prevalent characteristics of the times. 
 
 While tlie facts I have presented are beyond doubt or cavil, the con- 
 siderations which should regulate our tlocisions as to the Alabama 
 claims are so unquestionable as to be out of the region of debate. I 
 repeat that tlio Government of our country obtained the money 
 through tlie award of a great international court appointed by the 
 leading civilized nations, with the hope not only of solving the diflfi- 
 cultifs wliicli then existed, but f)f establishing a ])roc('dcnt which 
 would t(!nd to promote human progress l)y substituting just and hon- 
 orable arbitrament for settlements through l)rute force and tlio hor- 
 rors of war. We arc bound to respect the rulings of the court; and
 
 10 
 
 those whoso good opinion is best worth deserving will judge ua by 
 the disposal we make of the funds committed to our charge. 
 
 Our Government obtained the award as damages for the destruc- 
 tion of private property, and on proofs supplied by its owners. As 
 the Government itself never owned the property, it cannot possibly 
 
 bo the rightful^owner of the damages'or Jhave any right to confiscate 
 them. 
 
 In jtresenting the claims before the court as grounds for damages, 
 the Government insisted upon their validity. If it has now discov- 
 ered that they were invalid and that it was an error to present them, 
 only one alternative remains. The plain and common rules of hon- 
 esty and fair dealing are as obligatory in arbitraments between na- 
 tions as between individuals ; and if, after recovery of damages, the 
 plaintiff" nation ascertains or becomes convinced that the recovery was 
 founded on wrong or error, it is bound in honor and good faith to re- 
 turn the sum improperly collected. While Great Britain would doubt- 
 less be unwilling to receive again any part of the sum she has paid to 
 the Government of the United States under the award, she cannot be 
 expected to regard without interest an alienation of the money and 
 its application to objects for which, by so high a tribunal, it has been 
 decided that she is not responsible. 
 
 The duty of the Government, apart from this alternative, is plain 
 and simple. Having received the money as the value of private prop- 
 erty, it la bailee or trustee for the owners. Repudiation of the trust 
 or bailment by any individual under the same circumstances would 
 be severely punished in a court of justice. The nation cannot be 
 sued, but it is therefore so much the more firmly bound by higher 
 considerations of right and policy to render no less justice than the 
 private trustee would be constrained to do. All fair consideration 
 of this subject leads to the same conclusions. The only just claim on 
 the part of the Government is the one per cent, interest, the difference 
 between what it has paid and received. This is fairly its right, and 
 should be covered into the Treasury. 
 
 The Government ought freely and promptly to submit all claims upon 
 which the award was based to proper audit beforo^the distributing 
 tribunal, where they can be heard upon their merits and decided in 
 accordance with the principles of. legal right. No other course will 
 afford substantial or valid protection to the national.Treasury, and any 
 indirect or arbitrary procedure cannot fail to disgrace our country 
 in the estimation of the whole civilized world. 
 
 o
 
 THE GrENEVA AWARD. 
 
 IT AIAY BE DISTRIBUTED ACCOEDIXG TO JUSTICE 
 EQUITY. AND GOOD FAITH. 
 
 HON. GEORGE W. McCRARY. 
 
 OI^ lO'WA., 
 
 IN THK 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 June 8, 1876. 
 
 AV A s; ii 1 2sr G T ( ) X . 
 
 1876.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF ' 
 
 HOX. GEOKGE W. McCRARY 
 
 The Hou.si.' iiaviuj; under consideration the bill (H. E. No. 2685) for the distribu- 
 tion of the iinapnropriated moneys of the Geneva award — 
 
 Mr. McCRAKY said : 
 
 Mr. Speaker: I desire to coufiue my remarks upou tliis bill 
 mainly to what I regard as the fundamental inquiry in the discussion. 
 That inquiry is whether the fund paid into the hands of the United 
 States as the proceeds of the Geneva arbitration and award is a 
 trust fund which we are bound to pay to certain particular claim- 
 ants, or whether it is a fund paid to this Government to be dis- 
 tributed according to its discretion, and according to its view of 
 what is required by equity and justice and good faith toward its own 
 citizens. This I say is the fundamental question. If it be decided, 
 as I think it must be, that the Government of the United States may 
 exercise its discretion in the disposition of this fund, then I think 
 there will be bitt little difficulty in determining what ought to be 
 done with it. 
 
 One class of the claimants, the insurance companies, represented 
 by the minority of the committee, have already been enriched by war 
 premiums charged and received on account of the very causes which 
 gave rise to the treaty of Washington and resulted in the Geneva 
 award. In order that the importance and the significance of this 
 question may be seen by the House, I beg to state a few facts which 
 have now passed into history and will not be questioned. 
 
 Very soon after the outbreak of the war of the rebellion Great 
 Britain, animated no doubt bj' a hope that her oft-repeated prophecy 
 of the downfall of this Republic was about to be fulfilled, recognized 
 tlie belligerent rights of the Confederate States. That recognition 
 and the events which followed gave rise to what were known as the 
 Alabama claims, to the treaty of Washington, aiul to the Geneva ar- 
 bitration. IJfforc that recognition, Mr. Speaker, our commerce was 
 «afe upon tbf high seas. The confederacy had no ships of war and 
 no means of producing them. It Wiuj not long after that recognition 
 until a liirgi' number of confederate cruisers were armed and equijiped 
 in British ports and let loose upon the high seas to prey upon Ameri- 
 can commerce and to destroy American shipping. This, in a word, 
 was the cause of our complaint .-igainst Great Britain. It was main- 
 tained by the Government of the United States from the very com- 
 mencenu^nt tliat the losses which our American ship-owners and onr 
 American merchants suffered by reason of tlieso cruisers wen* canwd 
 by the hasty recognition of the belligerent rights of tlie confederacy 
 and by the subse([uent course of the govcrniiKiiit of Great Britain in 
 permitting rebel cruiserH to fit out in and sail Iroui hi^r jxjpIs. As oua
 
 of the lesulfcs of these causes the rates of insnrance went up to enor- 
 mous proportions. The iusunince companies •svho insured American 
 ships chai'ged very high war premiums; and as a result of the busi- 
 ness of insuring American ships and cargoes against war risks, the 
 insurance companies, which are now claimants for a portion of this 
 fund, realized a profit in the aggregate of more than ;f2,000,000. Va- 
 rious ships were destroyed that were not insured. Persons who paid, 
 because these cruisers were abroad upon the ocean, large sums of 
 money as war premiums now ask, and I think justly, to be indemni- 
 fied from this fund. 
 
 It is not my purpose to enter into detail. My task shall be to es- 
 tablish the proposition that it is within the Y>ower of Congress 'to 
 exercise a discretion in the distribution of this fund and so to dis- 
 tribute it as to pay the actual losses, so as to pay. the actual sufferers 
 the amounts which they lost by reason of Great ]3ritaiu's wrong. I 
 maintain, Mr. Speaker, that Congress is not bound to pay over this 
 money or any part of it into the coffers of corporations that were 
 enriched by the recognition of the confederacy by Grreat Britain and 
 by the fact that confederate cruisers were permitted to be abroad 
 upon the ocean. If, sir, this great arbitration between these two 
 great nations has.hadno other result than this, that the fund received 
 from Great Britain in order to carry out the award must be carried 
 into the coffers of corporations that lost nothing but really enriched 
 themselves by reason of the wrongs for which our damages were 
 allowed, then our boast as to the honor that has been conferred upon 
 this nation by the treaty of Washington and the Geneva award is an. 
 empty boast. 
 
 Now, I maintain the proiiositiou that the Government of the United 
 States has not put itself in this attitude, hnt has from the beginning 
 to the end of this great and to us highly honorable controversy reserved 
 the right to distribute this fund as right and justice and good faith 
 may dictate. If I can settle that proposition, I think there will be 
 little doubt as to what the House will do witli the pending bill. The- 
 report of the majority provides a just, an equitable, a fair distribu- 
 tion of this fund, a distribution such as I am sure the House will not 
 hesitate to agree to, if we shall tlnd that this discretion exists. 
 
 In determining this question it is proper that we consider the treaty 
 itself, the proceedings at Geneva, and the award of the arbitrators. 
 I maintain that by reference to all. of these it is apparent that the 
 Government of the United States did retain control of this fund and 
 the right to dispose of it to actual sufferers by reason of England's 
 wrong, bounded only by the subject-matter of the arbitration. ' 
 
 But before I come to consider the main <|uestion, let me call the at- 
 tention of the House to a preliminary consideration. This question, 
 M)'. Speaker, has once been decided by Congress. After a long de- 
 bate the two Houses agreed, and a bill was passed which is uov/ the 
 law of the land which recognizes tlie doctrine for which I contend, 
 and which provides that the insurance companies which made money 
 out of war premiums sliall only recover the amount of their actual 
 losses. The language of the law is as follows : 
 
 No claim sliall be admissible or allowed by .said court, by or in behalf of any in- 
 surance company " * * unless such claiiuaEt shall show to the satisfaction of 
 said court that during the late rebellion tlie sum of its * * * losses in respect 
 to its * * " war risks exceeded the sum of its * ' * premiums or other 
 gains upon or in respect to such war risks. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, under that law the proper court has distributed 
 about one-half of this large fund. Upon that princi])le about ten mill-.
 
 ious of the twenty milliou dollars originally iu tlic Treasury, iuchul- 
 iug interest and premium ou gold, has been distributed. Now, I do 
 not say that this Congress may not reverse the policy of the last Con- 
 gress : but I do say that as a matter of public policy it is exceedingly 
 impolitic for one Congress upon a subject of this character to change 
 the policy established by another. 
 
 Let us look at it for a moment. Congress has deliberately decided 
 upon a rule by which this fund shall be distributed. By that rule a 
 large class of claimants ai'e denied relief because they are not» losers, 
 l)ut gainers, on account of the acts of which the Government com- 
 plained and for which the Government received this money. Under 
 this rule, established by solemn act of Congress, we have proceeded 
 until the fund is one-half exhausted. 
 
 Now, sir, if that rule is reversed, if it be now declared that the in- 
 surance companies are entitled to this money, no man can say the 
 fund will hold out until they are all paid, because one-half of it has 
 been distrilmted upon the other theory. And if the fund does not 
 hold out, who will undertake to say Ihese corporations will not suc- 
 cessfully demand the payment of their claims out of the Treasury of 
 the United States for any balance over and above the amount of the 
 fund ? I think, Mr. Speaker, that a question of this character once 
 decided, once passed into law, ought not to be changed unless there be 
 very grave and controlling reasons for so doing, especially after a 
 large part of the fund has beeii distributed. 
 
 But, sir, I proceed to show, as I believe I can, from the treaty itself, 
 from the proceedings at Geneva, and from the award, that the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States has retained the control of this fund ; 
 tliat it was paid to this Government as a nation, without any require- 
 ment that it should be distributed to particular claimants, but with 
 the distinct understanding that the Government retained the right 
 to flistriljute it in its own discretion. 
 
 Mr. HOOKER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a ques- 
 tion for information ? 
 
 Mr. McCKARV. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. HOOKER. Are you prepared to state what proportion of this 
 award has been paid to tjiese insurance companies iu comi)arison to 
 what has been ])aid to actual losers ? 
 
 Mr. Mc'CRARY. Mr. Speaker, under the law as it stands insurance 
 companies are entitled to their actual losses, and lam told that they 
 liave claimed and recovered a small amount, a very small amount, be- 
 <;ause there were few companies that did not make money out of war 
 nsks. 
 
 Mr. CAT'EFH-'LI). Tiie amount of claims put in was $48,001), and 
 they proved .Sl'i,"Oii. 
 
 Mr. McClf AR^'. Now, sir, I insist under the treaty it was intended 
 that if a sum in gross should be paid to the United States, that sum 
 should be paid to the United States as a nation without restriction as 
 to the disi»()sition of the fund by this Gyvernment. By reference to 
 the treaty it will Ite seen that two plans were proposed for the settle- 
 ment of tlu-se claims, lirst it was proposed that the arbitrators 
 might, if thry saw fit, provide for the api)ointment of assessors be- 
 fore whom all jirivate claimants should present tiieir claims and prove 
 tliem np. Or, if that was not agreed to, then it was proposed and 
 l>rovlded that a sum in gross might be paid l>y the government of 
 (Jreat Britain to the (Jovernment of the t'nited States. 
 
 And now I want to call the attention of the House to the two arti- 
 cles of the treaty, th(! one which provides for tlie ajipoiiitiiientof as- 
 
 :61G 
 
 ^ 
 ^
 
 6 
 
 sosBors, and tbe other which provides for the payment of a sum in 
 gross. I ask the especial attention of the House to the difference 
 between these two articles, because the difference is very striking, 
 and, as I think, very significant. If the proposition to refer the 
 claims to assessors had been adopted, then it was provided that 
 those assessors should be guided and governed in the allowance of 
 claims by the decisions and findings of the board of arbitration. But 
 in case a sum in gross was allowed to the Government of the United 
 States, a very different provision was made. In the latter case there 
 is no limitation to be found in the award except this : that the sum 
 paid to the Government of the United States shall be in satisfaction 
 of all the claims referred to the tribunal. 
 
 Let me call the attention of the House to the exact language of 
 these two articles, and comment briefly on them. Article 7, which 
 relates to the payment of a sum in gross, provides as follows : 
 
 In case the tribunal finds that Great Biit-ain has failed to fulfill any duty or du- 
 ties as aforesaid, it may. if it think proper, proceed to award a sum in gross to be 
 paid by Great Britain to the United States. 
 
 For what? For such claims as the arbitrators have specifically 
 allowed ? For any particular claims, to satisfy any class of claims to 
 the exclusion of others ? No, sir. 
 
 To be paid by Great Britain to the United States for all the claims referred to it. 
 
 For all the claims referred to the tribunal. Now, sir, that is pecu- 
 liar language, and it must have been inserted in the treaty for a pur- 
 pose. I shall show, Mr. Speaker, presently that this language is re- 
 peated, with little variation, several times in the treaty and in the 
 award. 
 
 Bnt when you contrast it with article 1(», which provides for the 
 appointment of assessors, the House will discover at once why this 
 difference, why this peculiar language in one article which is not 
 found in the other. Article 10, which relates to the allowance of 
 claims by assessors, is as follows : 
 
 In case the tribunal finds that Great Britain has failed to fulfill any duty or dutie.s 
 as aioresaid and does not award a sum in gross, the high contiacting parties agree 
 that a board of assessors shall be appointed to ascertain and determine what claim.s 
 are valid and what amount or amounts shall be paid by Great Britain to the United 
 States on account of the liability arising fiom such iailuie as to each vessel — 
 
 Here is the point I call the attention of the House to — 
 as to each vessel accordinj to the extent of sxi^h liability, as decided by the arbitrators. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, why was not that language in article 7 ? Why 
 was no limitation put upon the Government of the United States as 
 to the disposition of this fund ? It was provided in case assessors 
 were appointed they should be guided by the decisions of the arbi- 
 trators, and it was provided if a sum in gross was paid to the United 
 States it should be for "all the claims referred to the tribunal." 
 
 Now, sir, it is very plain that a different mode of distribution was 
 intended under section 10 from that which is provided tinder section 
 7. I will show as I proceed why it was that the arbitrators were 
 careful; and why it was that fhis language was inserted ; that it was 
 simply and solely because it was the settled policy of the United 
 States to insist that this Government shotild not b.e committed as to 
 the mode or manner of the distribution of any gross sum that might 
 be allowed. Hence it was that when they provided for a sum in 
 gross they provided nothing but that it .should be in satisfaction of 
 all the claims ; but when they came to talk about submitting these 
 claims to assessors, then they inserted the restrictions. 
 
 It was of importance to Great Britain in case the claims were to be
 
 settled by aeseBSors, "without any maximum sum being named in the 
 treaty, that the rules should be laid down whereby these claims should 
 be determined and the amount paid to each claimant should be fixed. 
 But, sir, when it was proposed to pay a sum in gross to the United 
 States in satisfaction of all claims, it became a matter of no conse- 
 quence whatever to Great Britain what the United States did with 
 the money. 
 
 I shall recur again to some other features of the treaty before I con- 
 clude, but I pass now to show by the proceedings at Geneva tbat this 
 Government is not committed as to the disposition of this fund. Our 
 policy on the subject was declared in language that cannot be mis- 
 understood in the instructions given by this Government to our coun- 
 sel at Geneva, from which I read as follows ; and as I regard this as 
 very significant, I would like to have the attention >of the House to it : 
 
 The President desires to have the subject discussed as one between the two gov- 
 emments, and he directs me to urge upon yon stiongly to secure if possible the 
 award of a sum in gross. In the discussion of this question, and in the treatment 
 of the entire case, you will be careful not to commit the Government as to the dis- 
 position of what may be awarded. » * * The Government wishes to hold^itself 
 free to decide as to the rights and claims of insurers upon the termination of the 
 case. If the value of the property captured or destroyed be recovered in the name 
 of the Government, the distribution of the amount recovered will be made by this 
 Government, without committal as to the mode of disti'ibution. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, if the counsel of the United States before the 
 tribunal at Geneva did not violate the instructions given by this Gov- 
 ernment, then I say that this Government is not cominitted as to the 
 mode of distribution. And gentlemen who come here representing 
 insurance companies and claiming that this Government is committed 
 by the proceedings and the award at Geneva must do so upon the as- 
 sumption that this positive, direct, imperative, and explicit instruc- 
 tion given by the Government to its own counsel was disregarded 
 and was not obeyed. 
 
 Sir, if it became necessary in the course of that negotiation for the 
 counsel of the United States to submit to a decision which would 
 compel this Government to pay the.se §20,000,000 into the cofi'ers of 
 <M)rporations that had been enriched by England's wrongs, if it be- 
 came necessary in the course of that negotiation for our counsel to 
 iletermine the question whether we should withdraw from the arbi- 
 tration or tie the hands of this Government in tliat way, it would 
 have been the imiierative duty of the counsel on the part of the 
 United States to insist upon a withdrawal from the negotiation. They 
 were commanded by their Government to see to it that the Govern- 
 ment of the Uijited States was left free as to — 
 
 "The disposition of what may be awarded" and especially free " to <Iecidp ae to 
 tlie rights iin<l claims of insurers upon the termination ot' the case'' and to dis- 
 tributt! any snni recovered in the name of the govi-rnineiit " without committal a.s 
 to thi; mode of distribution." 
 
 But, sir, the counsfd of this Governmetit wore not false to their 
 client ancl to their high trust. They did not fail to do their duty. 
 They did jiot violate the order and the instruction which this Govern- 
 ment liad given thorn. They were careful fron^ tlie beginning to the 
 end of the negotiation to make it a negotiation between the two gov- 
 ernments alone and not in any nmnner to commit this Govornnient 
 to (In injii.Htice as between itsown citizens. Our counsel, in pursuance 
 of this instrnclion, saiil to the tribunal : 
 
 'I'bt'Ht! claims are all preferred by the TTnited iStafcH as a nation against Great 
 Hiitaiii an a iibtion, and arc to bu so computed and paid. 
 
 Now, sir, what did they mean when they s.-ftd that this money was 
 to lie jiaiil to the United States as a nation f It follows Inevilatily
 
 8 
 
 that it was uot paid to the Uuited States as a meie attoruey or ageut. 
 01" trustee for any class of claimauts M'hatever. 
 
 Mr. HURD. The nation may he a trustee. 
 
 Mr. lIcCRARY. The nation, my friend from Ohio says, may be a 
 trustee. So it may. But you must put your finger on the authority 
 which makes it a trustee.' Where is the authority in all these pro- 
 ceedings for saying that this Govemmeut accepted the position of a 
 trustee, much less of a trustee for the insurance companies or for any 
 particular class of these chaimants ? Why, sir, from the very beginning 
 this Government insisted that all these wrongs and injuries result- 
 ing from the recognition of the confederacy as a belligerent nation 
 were just claims of damages on behalf of the citizens of the United 
 States. The President in his message as early as 1870 recommended 
 to Congress that all these claims be allowed and paid by this Govern- 
 ment as a basis for a claim to be made thereafter by the United States 
 against Great Britain. It is not to be presumed, sir, that this Goverp- 
 ment, for the sake of collecting money^to be paid over to the insurance 
 companies, intended to sacrifice the rights of other claimants whose 
 clainjs were far more meritorious. 
 
 Well, sir, did the Government of the United States ever waive its 
 right to distribute this fund in its own discretion ? If so, when and 
 where ? Not surely by the award which it consented to and under 
 which it received the 'money, for I will now undertake to show to the 
 House that the most conclusive of all the proof on this subject is the 
 award itself, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the instrument under which 
 the money was paid. If anywhere there is to be found evidence to 
 show what the United States was to do with this fund, surely it must 
 be in the award, the final end, conclusion, and summing up of the 
 whole matter. If the Uuited States is a trustee for any particular 
 class of claimants, surely we will find some evidence to that efi'ectin 
 the award which directed the money to be paid. 
 
 Now let us turn to the award for a moment and see how careful 
 the representatives of the Uuited States were to carry out aud not 
 violate or disregard the injunctions of the Government in regard to 
 leaving tlie United States perfectly free and in no manner committed 
 as to the mode of distributing this fund. I read now from the award 
 itself : 
 
 The tribunal, making use of the authority confen-ed upon it by article 7 of the 
 said treaty, by a majority of four voices to one. awariis to the Uuited States a 
 sum of $13,500,000 in gold, as tlie indemnity to be paid by Great Britaiu to the 
 United States, for the sathfa-ction of all the claims referred to the comideration of 
 the tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in article 7 of the aforesaid 
 treaty. 
 
 Now, there are two or three things that I wish to call attention to 
 ixi that part of the award. The money was awarded to the Uuited 
 States, not to any claimants, not for any particular claimants, but " as 
 indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States, for the 
 satisfaction of all claims refeiTed to the consideration of the tribunal." 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Government of the United States took the 
 money to be paid to a particular class of claimants, to the insurance 
 companies, how could it be said that it was received in satisfaction of 
 all claims referred to in the treaty ? I apprehend, sir, that a man 
 who owned a ves.sel that was uninsured, worth $50,000, which was run 
 down and destroyed by one of the rebel cruiser not mentioned as in- 
 culpated by the tribunal, would think it a strange sort of satisfaction 
 of his claim to pay the jnoney over to the United States to be applied 
 to other people's claims, and with the express injunction and piovis-
 
 9 
 
 ion that the Goverumeut should uot use oue dollar of it for the liqui- 
 dation of his claim. A curious sort of satisfaction that. And yet this 
 solemn instrument, the award of the tribunal, declares that this sum 
 is paid to the United States in saiisf action of all claims referred to the 
 consideration of the tribunal, ail of the claims known as Alabama 
 claims. Sir, it was to be in satisfaction of all the claims because this 
 Government took the money to distribute as it might deem just. 
 I read again from this award : 
 
 And, in accordance witli tlie terms of article 11 of the said treaty, the tribunal 
 declares that " all the claims ref ened to in the treaty as submitted to the tribunal are 
 herebyfuUy, perfectly, and finally settled.'' Fnithermore, it declares that 'each 
 and every one of the said claims, whether the same may or may not have been pre- 
 sented to' the notice of. or made, preferred, or laid before the tribunal, shall hence- 
 forth be considered and treated as finally settled, ban-ed, and inadmissible." 
 
 And yet, Mr. Sjieaker, it is seriously contended that by that award 
 the Government of the United States holds this fund as a mere trus- 
 tee to pay to a certain class of claimants. The award was not for 
 specific claims. If such had been the purpose of the tribunal, it 
 would have been very easy to have expressed it. The tribunal found 
 no difficulty in expressing its idea in reference to the allowance of 
 claims bv assessors, and it would have found no difficulty in saying, 
 '■'the tribunal awards to the United States 815,500,000 for the purpose 
 . of paying the claims of certain claimants, according to the decisions 
 of the tribunal." It would have been easy, I say, to have inserted 
 language' of that sort ; but, sir, our counsel stood there, and they had 
 been instructed by their Government that they were not to submit to 
 unj-thing of that sort ; that this Government would uot take the 
 money if it shoukl be bound by the award to do anything with it 
 which it did uot believe to be right and just in its dealings with its 
 own peofde, and hence it was that all Great Britain demanded, all 
 the United States submitted to was, that it would take this money 
 and it would be considered a full settlement of all the claims referred 
 to the tribunal, not all the claims allowed by the tribunal, not all the 
 claims coming within the interlocutory decisions of the tribunal, but 
 all the claims referred to the tribunal. 
 
 Why, sir, it is even provided th.it this fund paid to the United 
 States shall be in full satisfaction for all claims whether presented to 
 the tribunal or uot. How could the United States become a trustee 
 for the payment of specific claims under an instrument like that ? 
 A trust is not ordinarily created without .some language being used 
 implying that there is a trust. Xo man can read the av/ard of the 
 tribunal wliich I have read to the House and say that it was in the 
 minds of the arbitrators to liuut, prescribe, and control the mode 
 of distributing tliat fund. 
 
 Why, sir, the men who sat in that tribunal, the men who penned 
 tluit award, wore great andleanied men ; they knew the force of lan- 
 guage, and it cannot be that they intended any such thing as this when 
 they used the language to which I have called the attention of the 
 House. 
 
 But it is ,'*aid Tand this is the. great argument on behalf of the iu- 
 Hurance ci>;upanios) that the award was founded upon a certain class 
 of claims, that the amount of it was a-scertained by referring to a cer- 
 t.tin .sclicdule setting fr)rth the claims chiefly of insurance companies, 
 and that the Government of the United States obtained this money 
 by making use of the evidence furnished by the insurance companies, 
 and tliat now it is bound to pay it over to them. • 
 
 Sir, there miglit be Hoinetliing in tliis argument if this statement
 
 10 
 
 embraced all the facts in the case; hut it docs not. The gentlemen) 
 ■who make these arguments overlook the fact that wlieu this Govern- 
 ment submitted to the decision of the tribunal as to the particular 
 vessels concerning whose acts Great Britain was to be held responsi- 
 ble — whtn this Government submitted to that decision it did so giv- 
 ing notice to the tribunal, giving notice to Great Britain, that it re- 
 served the right to dispose of this fund in its own discretion in distrib- 
 uting it among its own citizens. Therefore the proposition that this 
 Government recovered this amount of money upon the showing made 
 at Geneva by the insurance companies, even if it were true, would 
 have no controlling influence in the decision of this question. But 
 it does not appear to be trxie. 
 
 It is impossible to say upon what data, upon what evidence, the 
 arbitrators arrived at the sum of $15,500,000. Various claims had 
 been presented ; such evidence as the United States could command 
 was laid before the tribunal. But the Government expressly declared 
 that it was not to be bound by anything that was presented. The 
 tribunal ascertained the amount from the best evidence it could get. 
 But, like the proceedings in a jury-room, it is impossible to say what 
 controlled or influenced the decision of the arbitrators in fixing the 
 sum. 
 
 Upon that subject perhaps no man is better informed than Mr. J. 
 Bancroft Davis, who was the agent of the United States at Geneva. 
 I ask to read to the House what he says about it. Mr. Davis says this : 
 
 It is eTident that the arbitrators, to facilitate, the investigations, wished to have 
 before them a comparative summary of that which the United States claim and the- 
 criticism of these claims by England, criticism bearing upon the items as well as 
 upon the classes of claims. These tables, made by the two parties in no vf&y bind 
 the arbitrators. They are simply indications suited to guide the tribunal across 
 the mass of figures and details contained in the cases and the evidences of the two 
 governments. 
 
 Again, he says : 
 
 It does not appear in the protocols how the arbitrators anived at this amount. I 
 am informed that it was reached by mutual concessions. The neutral arbitrators 
 and Mr. Adams, from the beginning of the proceedings, were convinced of the 
 policy of awarding a sum in gross. * * * "We therefore devoted our energies 
 toward securing such a sum as should be practically an indemnity to the sufferers. 
 Whether we have or have not been successful can be determinetl only by thelinal 
 division of the sum. 
 
 I have said, and I based the statement upon what appears in the 
 record, that our counsel at Geneva obeyed the instructions which 
 were given them by the Government. I think I have shown that they 
 did so. But I have a little further testimony upon that subject ; it 
 is the opinion of one of the counsel who represented the Govern- 
 ment before that tribunal ; I mean Hon. Caleb Gushing. 
 
 Mr. Gushing, counsel for our Government, in liis book upon the 
 Alabama claims, says : 
 
 The awaid is to the United States, in conformity with the letter of the treaty, 
 which has for its well-defined object to adjust and remove complaints and claims 
 on the part of the United States. 
 
 But the history of the treaty and of the arbitration shows that the United States 
 recovered not for the benefit of the American Government as such, but of such in- 
 dividual citizens of the United States as shall appear to have suffered loss by the 
 a«ts or neglects of the British government. It is, however, not a special trust le- 
 gally affected by any particular claimant or claims, but a general fund, to be admin- 
 istered by the tJnitea States in good faith, in conformity with their own conception 
 of justice and equity within the range of the award. Xor does the tribunal define 
 formally what claims .shall be satisfied otherwise than in the comprehensive terms • 
 of the award, which declares that the sum awaided is the indemnity to be paid by 
 Great Brftain to the United States for (he aatisiactiou of all ciaime referred to the 
 consideiatioii ot the tribunal.
 
 11 
 
 He further says : 
 
 The arbitrators, be it observed, do not say tbat it is for the satisfaction of cer- 
 taiii specific claims among those referred to the consideration of the tribunal, but 
 of all the claims so referred conformably to the provisions of the tieaty. 
 
 And again, and more especially upon the point which I am discuss- 
 ing, as to whether the counsel of the United States carried out the 
 instructions given to them by this Government, Mr. Gushing in a 
 more recent opinion says : 
 
 The counsel of the United States were specially instructed by the Goverament 
 
 to avoid committing the United States to any theoiy of distribution as regards 
 
 either claims or claimants, and especially not to commit the United States in the 
 
 mattei- of the claims of insurers. 
 
 * X * * * * * 
 
 5. The counsel of the United States obeyed the instructions given them, and did 
 not commit the United States to any theory of distribution whatever, either by way 
 of irclnsion or of exclusion, but left that question to be deterniiiiecl by the wisdom 
 and discretion of Congress. 
 
 The United States at Geneva laid before the tribunal all the claims of citizens of 
 the United States which had been presented to the Government, without vouching 
 for the validity of any of them ; but insisted that the United States were not bound 
 by the printed schedules, but only by the description of the tre.aty — "all the said 
 claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generally 
 known as the Alabama claims.' (ProtocorxXVI.) 
 
 So it appears, not only from the language employed in the treaty and 
 award and from the whole course of the proceedings at Geneva but also 
 from the statement of one of the counsel of the United States, that 
 they did obey instructions, and did not commit this Government a» 
 to the distribution of this fund. 
 
 But this very view of the subject has been taken by British statesmen 
 themselves, and I wish now to call the attention of the House to that. 
 .Certain citizens of England who had lost by the Alabama, claimed in- 
 demnity from their own government, insistingthat, inasmuch as Great 
 Britain had consented to indemnify the citizens of another nation 
 (the United States) for losses occasioned by those cruisers, that gov- 
 ernment was bound to indemnify its own citizens in like manner. 
 And a claim of this character was made in the British Parliament. 
 But it was not considered as valid. The reason given was that the 
 government of Great Britain had not indemnified any citizen of the 
 Unit-ed States ; that the claim of no citizen of the United States had 
 over been considered or allowed by the Geneva tribunal or paid by 
 the British government under that award. During the debate in the 
 British Parliament Mi'. Anderson asked — 
 
 If we were obliged to pay for damage sustained by the Americar.s. by reason of 
 the conduct of the Alabaiiia, why were we not etjually bound to pay foi the damage 
 tsuKtaiucd by our own subjects by reason of tlie acts of that vessel i 
 
 Mr. Gla<lstone, then prime minister, .said in reply : 
 
 It appears to be iinjilicd that the government submitted the claims of certain 
 perHOiiH not subjects of Her Majesty to arbitration. 
 
 This is altogethiT a mistake. Mo claims of individuals have been submitted to 
 arbitration in relation to the Alabama. 
 
 What was submitted to arbitration was entirely a question between the two gov- 
 11 niiiciits. 
 
 The report of this debate is to be found in the London Times of May 
 27, 187;?, and is ouoted in a volume of the Foreign Relations of the 
 United States, part 1, page :?71. 
 
 So that the Htatesnicn of (Jreat Biitain tJieniKolves, who must bo 
 preHuiiicfl to have bce/i familiar with the proceedings of the tribunal, 
 to have iinderstfKxl tlie views and purposes of the two goveruiiicuts 
 concorntMl and of llie tribunal itKcll', have declared upon this subject
 
 12 
 
 that the tribunal liMii uotliing to do witli the cLiiius of iiidiviiliials, 
 and that this was simply a question between the two governments. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House 
 to some decisions upon this question which have been rendered by 
 the court of commissioners of. Ala))ama claims. The very question 
 now under consideration has been repeatedly brought to the atten- 
 tion of that court, and has legitimately and properly arisen in the 
 discharge of its duties under the law ; for a treaty, Mr. Speaker, ia 
 the supreme law of this land. And if this treaty makes this a trust 
 fund and vests the title to the fund in certain si»ecific claimants, it is 
 not within the power of Congress to divert the fund from the claim- 
 ants who are entitled to it under and by virtue of the treaty itself. 
 This Question, I say, has been repeatedly made before the court of 
 commissioners of Alabama claims ; a tribunal, I undertake to say, en- 
 titled to great respect for its ability, learning, and high character. 
 
 Mr. HURD. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him whether, from 
 the very nature of its constitution, that court is not one of Ihnited 
 jurisdiction ? 
 
 Mr. McCKx^EV. Undoubtedly it is a court of limited Jurisdiction. 
 What I say is that this question arises properly and necessarily in the 
 administration of the duties devolved upon that court by the law 
 under which it is created. 
 
 Mr. LORD. Is not the jurisdiction of the court limited only as to 
 the subject-matter of the claim f Does not the statute confer upon it 
 the broadest power in other respects ? 
 
 Mr. McCRARY. Unquestionably it is limited only as to the sub- 
 ject-matter over which it shall have jurisdiction ; but there is no limit- 
 ation upon that court which prevents it from deciding a constitu- 
 tional question which may arise in the course of an adjudication . 
 properly brought before it. 
 
 Now, in the case of Hubbel! vs. The United States that court uses 
 
 this language : 
 
 Notliinj: can be found in those proceedings (at Geneva) to limit or control good 
 faith on tne part of our Government in making auch allowance to claimants before 
 us, as in their judgment and discretion Congress might think proper. In fact, the 
 very able committee, to whom the British board of trade referred the in%'e8tigatioii 
 of the points at issue, say, in their report : '• The proper compensation for the losses 
 occasioned by the cruisers is the question we have to examine; but with the mode 
 of distributing that among the various claimants the Auierican Government alouc 
 :is concerned.'" 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 Mr. LORD. I ask that the gentleman be allowed to continue ; but 
 I had agreed that at this point of time I would yield an hour to the 
 gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Jones] on another matter. Does the 
 gentleman from Iowa [Mr. McCka.ry] prefer to continue his remarks 
 now or at some other time ? 
 
 Mr. McCRARY. I shall conclude in a very few minutes, and I pre- 
 fer to go on now. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. If there be no objection the gentleman 
 will proceed. 
 
 There was no objection. 
 
 Mr. McCRARY. Further on in this same opinion this court says: 
 
 The Government of the United States accepted the sum awarded in full settle- 
 ment of all the claims comprehended in the terms of tlio treaty, and soon after- 
 ■ward Congress passed the act providing for its distribution among the claimants, 
 ■which is to be our chief guide in the actual work of distribution. It is clear that 
 the Government had the right to prescribe the terms on which claimants should 
 jpresent their claims. They were not strong enough to compel payment of the 
 jnoney by Great Britain, and when this GoveruiDent obtained it the claimants had
 
 13 
 
 no legal rights to it except that which this Government, by ita own acts, chose to 
 iMM-onl. They must, therefore, take their respective shares' of it subject to all the 
 coiiilitions which the Governmeut has thought fit to appoint, or not tske them at 
 all. 
 
 I might read from numerous opinions of that court ; but I will con- 
 tent myself with reading only from one more, which is a very recent 
 case. I refer to the case of Khind vs. The United States, in which the 
 court say : 
 
 The award was iiiailo in iavui- oi tin- (iovevnnieut ami not in favor of t),^ claim- 
 ;iiit,s. The GovernTiient thus vindicated the national honor ; but it did not assume 
 to pay any particular class of claimants, nor any particular claim. Having ob- 
 tained the money by its own act and at its own cost, it had the rijrht to prescribe 
 the terms on wh'ich the distribution should be made. It certainly liad the power 
 to exclude certain claimants and to include others less meritorious. In the act 
 now before us, claimants are excluded who believe themselves .justly entitled to a 
 part of the fund ; but they have no power to assert their ri";ht to it. Under the 
 poweis committed to us we have in some instances I'ejected altogether claims pre- 
 Honted at Geneva, and in many more instances we have largely reduced such claims 
 in amount. i • ■ • 
 
 So I think, Mr. Siieaker, I have shown that by the treaty itself,. 
 by the proceedings at Geneva, by the terms of tlie award, and by the 
 decisions of the only court to which these questions have been sub- 
 mitted, it has been settled that this fund was paid to tiie United 
 States to be distributed among the sufferers by reason of England's 
 wrong in its own discretion. 
 
 It is claimed that tlie United States acted in ttat arbitration as 
 the ;ittorney or as the agent of these claimants. I deny it. There is 
 no evidence to support it. All tl:e evidence contradicts the proposi- 
 tioTi. But sir, if the Government of the United States did assume 
 the position of an agent or an attorney it was alike the agent and rep- 
 resentative of all the claimants named and referred to in the treaty 
 of Washington. And if gentlemen could sustain the proposition that 
 this Government was there in the capacity of an agent, not to settle 
 groat questions of international law, but to collect certain claims 
 which citizens of the United States had again.st Great Britain by 
 reason of her wrong-doing, they would only succeed in showing, ac- 
 cording to their theory of wliat our Government did, that never did 
 an agent and never did an attorney so betray a trust. 
 
 They would have you believe, Mr. .Speaker, that this Government 
 came before that great tribunal as the representative and agent of 
 all tliese claimants, and so conducted its agency, so represented its 
 principals or its clients, iis to give the greater part of this whole award 
 of $'.i(l,(KK>,OiiO to men w!u) do not in honesty and good faitli deserve 
 to receive a single dollar, and so as to deprive others who have lost 
 their all by England's wrong of tho right to recover a single cent. 
 
 A citizen of the United States was tlio owner of a vessel ujion the 
 high seas. AVith true patriotism and with true courage lie took his 
 own risk. He unfurled tlio Stars and Stripes over his vcissel, when 
 by showing foreign colors he wouhl have been safe. He had no in- 
 surance. A rebel cruiser let loose from a port in Great Ihitain runs 
 down liis vessel and it is destroyed. I lis all is gone and he is enti- 
 tled from no source, if not from this fnnd, to recover a single dollar 
 of indemnity. TJiis patriotic and loyal citizen places his claim iii tho 
 liands of his Government, and his Government goes before this great 
 tribunal to assort his rights, insisting it was England's wrong which 
 resulted in liis ruin. An insurance company that made its million of 
 doll.ars out of war preniium.s, having in the course of its business to 
 pay the loss on another vessel, places its claim, too, in the liands of 
 this fioveriiiiient, ami asks the Government to lie its re])reseutative
 
 14 
 
 before this liigli tribaual and to insist upon its rights. The Govern- 
 ment, accordiunr to gentlemen, accepted the position of agent or 
 of attorney for these two chiiniants. It went before that high court. 
 Before going, however, it pledged itself to these claimants, and to its 
 citizens, and to the world, that it would not under any circumstances 
 so tie its hands as to be Unable to distribute fairly and justly auy 
 sum in gross w'hich might be paid into its Treasury as the result of 
 its negotiations. Yet, after all that, are we to be told that this Gov- 
 ernment, in its capacity as attorney or agent, has goue before that 
 tribunal and has violated its promise to the people and to the claim- 
 ants, and has so conducted that negotiation that the citizen who lost 
 his all can recover nothing from this fund, and the insurance com- 
 pany that made its million shall carry off its whole claim ? Sir, you 
 disgrace the nation when you say it acted as attorney in this ca-se, 
 and you disgrace it more when you undertake to show to Con- 
 gress and the American people that when acting as attorney it con- 
 ducted itself in this way. No lawyer could retain his place at the 
 bar in any respectable court on the face of tlie earth who should so 
 betray his client.
 
 GEINTEV^ Js.^VJ^TlT) 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. GEORGE A. JENKS, 
 
 OF PENNSYLTAXIA, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIVES, 
 
 JUNE 28, 187G. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVEJJNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 1870.
 
 it must be because they have a legal right ; because as the law now 
 stands they are re-imbnrsed for all that they have lost in excess of 
 that which they have received in war premiums. Now, if they are 
 entitled to anything more it must be because they have a legal right. 
 And if they have legal right to any they must have legal right to all. 
 So that the majority report seems to me to be a logical solecism con- 
 tradictory in itself; apparently acknowledging the title of the insur- 
 ance companies and yet repudiating it. This amendment, therefore, 
 is necessary to give logical consistency to the majority report and to 
 do justice to those wlio have actually lost. 
 
 During tlie discussion of this question some of those who think the 
 insurance companies are entitled to the whole fund have seen proper 
 and thought it necessary to introduce authority to establish the prin- 
 ciple that a nation should be just. I apprehend. this was entirely 
 unnecessary. To be just is a nation's duty and her highest glory. 
 But we must not forget that before the throne of justice truth is the 
 sole ministering spirit ; and we can approach that throne only through 
 this medium. We must stand upon truth, and appropriate truth, or 
 justice cannot be done. 
 
 There has also been a series of arguments introduced which to 
 me seem to be entirely irrelevant and improper. Something like this 
 proposition has been stated : The United States have recovered this 
 fund from Great Britain. Now, if she, in disposing of it, does iK)t 
 give it to A or to B, she ought to return it to Great Britain. This is 
 a thorough non scqiiitiir. If a man obtains money honestly, how he 
 disposes of that money can in no event affect the justice or injustice 
 of the mode by which he obtained it. So that whether we give this 
 money to the insurance companies or not, if we obtained it in honest 
 good faith from Great Britain and perpetratetl no fraud upon her, it 
 makes no dili'erence to whom we distribute it. This, therefore, that 
 we see in the papers, that we wrong Great Britain if we give this to 
 others than the insurance companies, does not follow at all. The fact 
 is, as regards Great Britain, this money was obtained for certain ves- 
 sels destroyed in consequence of her neglect of duty as a neutral 
 power in the civil war transpiring between sections of the United 
 States. The individual title of no individual was considered in any 
 way. 
 
 But I would say here that if in any event it should turn out, or if 
 evidence should be adduced that we have in any manner wronged. 
 Great Britain, I would say pay her her money back. It is our duty 
 to be perfectly just. Justice is a more comprehensive term than 
 either national honor or national glory. The honor may be a mere 
 bubble. The glory may be tainted with crime. But justice is one of 
 the immaculate attributes of the Eternal, and is higher and broader 
 than either of the other terms. I would be just to Great Britain. I 
 would be just to every iieison who iiresents a claim here ; but I would 
 not accept the principle that when we have obtained this money 
 justly, if we do not give it to A, B, or C we should give it back to 
 Great Britain. That question in no way arises here, but is intro- 
 duced into the discussion in consequence only of that confusion which 
 often arises from attempting to consider two things at once which 
 are in no way relevant to each other. 
 
 In approaching the throne of justice it is also necessary to make 
 this distinction, that all truth is not e(iu,ally important. If I should 
 state as a legal truth that "if a person of sound memory and discre- 
 tion taketh the life of a reasonable being, and in the peace of the 
 Commonwealth, with malice aforethought, express or implied, he is 
 a murderer." That is a truth, an unquestionable legal truth, which we-
 
 .accept; but it woiiltl be eutiiely irrelevaut here. Or if I should state 
 as a fact the accurate dimeusious of this Hall, that would be a truth 
 but an irrelevaut truth. So that vre must not only approach the 
 ■august throne of justice through the medium of truth, but we must 
 see that that truth is relevant," relevant in fact and relevant in law. 
 Many considerations have been introduced here that seem to me to 
 be entirely unimportant in the discussion of this case. 
 
 The first proposition I will endeavor to establish will be that this 
 award was ol)taiued upon the paramount title of the nationf and not 
 upon any imlividual title whatever ; that no individual right was 
 ■considered by the arbitrators, nor was any individual right the basis 
 -upon which this recovery was had. And in reference to this, in order 
 to guard against confusion, it may be well to call to the attention . of 
 the House the fact that there are at the same tiuie to all the aggre- 
 gate wealth of a nation the ]iaramount title of the nation anil the 
 municipal title of the individual. They are not necessarily con- 
 nected at all. The destruction of the one does not necessarily de- 
 stroy the other at all. The transfer of one does not necessarily 
 transfer the other at all. They are distinct and for distinct and dif- 
 ferent puri>oses. The title which pertains to the nation, which is a 
 sovereign as to foreign nations and to the individual, ai'e as distinct 
 as if the two tith-s existed in distinct individuals, each for its own 
 appropriate ]iinj»ose. 
 
 We may illustrate this by the fact that a nation may sell its para- 
 mount title to another in such case. Those who hold a municipal 
 title are not thereby divested of their individual rights or titles, be- 
 cause the municipal titl^ was not destroyed by the sale. But there 
 may be a money consideration paid for the title of a nation. Audit 
 may be transferred as fully as an individual can transfer his own. 
 
 We have illustrations of this in the history of our own country, in 
 the cases of the purchase of Louisiana, the purchase of New Mexico, 
 and the purchase of Alaska. Those inhabitants who, ])iun- to those 
 purchases, owned jtroperty within the purchased territory did not 
 have their title affected at all. l>ut the paramount title of France in 
 one instance, of Mexico iu another, aud of Russia in the third was 
 transfeired to our country. Therefore we waut to remember that the 
 municipal title of tlie individual and the paramount title of the sov- 
 reign are not the same at all. 
 
 Then, if they an; not the same, on what title was this recovery had 
 as to Great Ijritain ? And before we progress further in the consid- 
 eration of that jxiint it may n(d be irrelevant to suggest what is title. 
 " It is the means by which the owner cometh to the just possession of 
 his jiroperty." WJierever tliere is no means there is no title. Some- 
 times the ]>ar»mount title of the sovereign may be the means of re- 
 covering tlie inferior or municipal title of the citizen. Where I speak 
 of th«! jiaranionnt title of the sovereign and the municii)al title of the 
 citizen I do not wish to be undtMstood as derogating fioiu either, be- 
 cause they do not collide; tln;re is no contia vent ion ot'ri;;ht between 
 them; they aie very of ten co-existing, but they may be, separate. 
 
 Another illusi lation of this point : In a tinit; of war. if a eitizen sell 
 his property to tin- enemy that clearly divests the title of the eitizen 
 to tliat property; but the paramount title of the sovereign is not di- 
 vesteil theieby, ami the sovereign may recover it ba<;k. 'I'he eitizen 
 has destroyed his title; lint tlie nation's titli' stands intact as before, 
 anil it is as nnn li her property after the sah* as before. Tlien^fore 
 we must l>ear in mind that the two titlesan'uot necessarily co-exi.st- 
 4'nt, although thfv usually do exist together. 
 
 Then, thirc being two titles, on what title was this recovery liad ?
 
 I maintaiu tliat it was had solely and exclusively on the paramounfe 
 title of the United States, which, as to all foreign nations, is sover- 
 eign, fnlly endowed in all respects. The first fact to which I wish 
 to call attention is the very statement of this case. This case stood 
 " United States vs. Great Britain." The award was in favor of the 
 United States and against Great Britain. Now, prima facie, the title- 
 recovered upon miist have been the title of the United States. There- 
 fore the award itself Would be at first prima facie evidence that the- 
 title on which that recovery was had was in the United States. 
 
 Then, unless sufficient evidence is adduced to the contrary, the- 
 award itself would settle it in the mind of any lawyer that it was ou 
 the paramount title of the United States alone that it was recovered. 
 This is capable of being rebutted by evidence ; because, as I have 
 said before, the title of the sovereign and the title of the citizen are 
 not antagonistic or adverse at all. But prima facie I say that the 
 very a jvard itself is evidence that it was recovered on the title of the- 
 United States. 
 
 The second fact to which I shall call the attention of the House in 
 reference to the title is that this award was had on three certain 
 rules established by the Geneva tribunal. Those rules were with 
 reference to the duty of a neutral nation in time of -u-ar. Now, there 
 is no duty that one nation owes to the citizen of another as such. If 
 war exists between two nations, and another nation recognizes the 
 belligerent state of those two nations, it owes neutral duties to those 
 nations. But the international duty of neutrality exists only between 
 nations, and not between a nation and any citizen of another, iude- 
 jjendent of his sovereign. 
 
 Now, the very ground of the recovery of this award was that Great 
 Britain had violated her duty as a neutral. Whatever was introduced 
 before that tribunal for the purpose of establishing the amount to be 
 recovered was merely evidence of the amouut of damages, and was 
 not any ground of recovery. Just as in the case of an action of cov- 
 enant being brought on a contract between two paj'ties,-the contract 
 being one to build a house. You might introduce evidence of what 
 another man's house cost to test the amount of damages resulting 
 from the failure to carry out the contract to build. That would give 
 no title to the house the cost of which had been given in evidence, as- 
 it was only a means of finding out the amount of damages done on the 
 breach of contract ; or, as we would say in this case, ou the breach of 
 national relations between the United States and Great Britain. The 
 ground of recovery before the Geneva tribunal was a breach of duty, 
 which conduced to the destruction of property over which the United 
 States had a paramount title. 
 
 If there had not been a single vessel destroyed, the United States 
 could have sustained its ground of action, but the amouut of dam- 
 ages would not have been probably so great as that which was award- 
 ed. The three rules ou which this award -^-as founded show that the 
 ground of recovery was the breach of national duty, which no nation 
 ever owes to the individual citizen of another nation as a citizen, sft 
 The third fact is that the court was international. This court 
 could not pass upon individual titles. No nation would appear before 
 an international triliunal to contest with a citizen concerning any 
 right that he might have. The character of the court itself indicates 
 that this was a contest on the paramount title of the United States^ 
 and not upon any individual title. And these insurance companies, 
 or any person else appearing there and attempting to establish their 
 title before this tribunal, would have been ruled out without a hearing,.
 
 as in fact they vrere ruled out. Every iijdividual title that -was there 
 offered as a title was ruled out. 
 
 But the arbitrators say, " We settle this question between nations 
 and on national rights, not between individuals at all.*' 
 
 The next fact that we would give in evidence is the instructions of 
 Lord Russell in reply to Mr. Adams, which I quote from a speech of 
 the honorable Senator from Ohio ; 1 have no doubt the quotation is 
 correct : 
 
 Her Majesty's govemmont cannot therefore admit that they are under any obli- 
 gation ■whatever to make compensation to the United Statts citizens on account of 
 proceedings of that vessel, (the Alabama.) 
 
 The British government repudiated any obligation to make com- 
 pensation to citizens of the United States for any injury done to them. 
 " It must be something else than citizen's title' that niust be consid- 
 ered here,'' was what the arbitrators said. If the question had been 
 one of citizen's title there would never have been any recovery, as I 
 shall demonstrate as I proceed further in my argument. 
 
 It is said by some that the individual title was ruled out on account 
 of that transcendental maxim (a relic of the Dark Ages) that a sov- 
 ereign could not condescend to contest with an iudi\"idual. That was 
 not the ground ; the ground was that the individual had no title which 
 could be presented there. 
 
 My next jiroposition will be that there was no municip.il title to 
 any portion of this property that was destroyed after the moment of 
 captuie. However, as to this at present. Her Majesty's government 
 repudiated making compensation to any citizen in that award ; that 
 is The ground upon which England acted. 
 
 Then Avith reference to the United States, we find this fact also ap- 
 pearing, that not only the court itself before which this trial was 
 had, and the British government, repudiated all individual title, but 
 the United States did the very same thing; lor in the communica- 
 tion of iiistrnctions of Secretary Fish to those having this trial in 
 charge the following jiassage occurs : 
 
 The Prewrtent desires to have the Rnbject discnssed as one between the two gov- 
 emmeiiis. and Le directs me to iu;;e upon yon strongly to secure, if possible, the 
 a'A'aril of a sum in jaoss. In the discussion of this question, and in the treatment 
 of the entire case, you will be careful not to commit the Government as to the dis- 
 position of what may be awardt-d. It is possible that there may be duplicate 
 claims upon some of the propei-ty alleged to have been captured or destroved. a.s in 
 the case of insurers and insured. The Government wishes to hold herself fiee to 
 decide as to the lights of the claimant.s' insuiers upon the termination of the case. 
 If the value of the proneity ca^itured or destroyed be recoidfd in the name of the 
 (Jovemment, the distribution ot the amount recorded will be made by this Govern- 
 ment without committal as to \\ui mode of distribution. 
 
 Now, if it had been on the title of any individual that this recovery 
 was had, tliere must necessarily have been a committal of the Gov- 
 ernm«'nt, because the Goveniiiient cannot violate ]trivate right — can- 
 not take the ]ir<»])crty of one and give it to another. This i>riiiciple 
 of law is so well kjiown that if the Govenimciit liad not stood upon 
 the ground tliat sin- was recovering uiuui her paranidunt title that 
 which was destroyed by tlic breach of neutral duties on the part of 
 Great Britain, that couiniunication of Secretary Fish would never 
 have been made by the United States as it was. 
 
 Tliese facts siiHiciently establisli that the amount was recovered 
 Ji|ion tlie paramount title of the United States, and not up<m any iu- 
 dividual title of any citizen thereof. 
 
 But it does not follow because it waw recovered upon the title of 
 the United States, that therefore the Guvernmeiit may not have re-
 
 8 
 
 covered for tlie use of some of her citizens. If any of her citizens 
 had title to the jiroperty destroyed, after its destruction her recovery 
 on her paramount title would necessarily make her a trustee for those 
 whose property was destroyed. 
 
 Now, the next inquiry (and to this I will turu my attention more 
 particularly) is, was there any individual title to this property at all 
 at the time the award was recovered against Great Britain? If there 
 was, then the individual who had that municipal title is entitled to 
 his share of this fund, aud so are his privies, the insui-ance companies, 
 if there was title. But if there was not title, then he has no claim 
 above all the rest of his fellow-citizens in like circumstances ; nor 
 have his privies, the insurance companies. So that the inquiry now 
 becomes pertinent, was there any title in existence at the time of this 
 recovery except the i^aramouut title of the nation itself ? I propose 
 to undertake to demonstrate that there was no other title. 
 
 The first fact to which I would call attention in reference to this 
 point is that there was a civil war existing. This appears to me to 
 be a great ruling fact in the case. It seems to a great extent to have 
 been jiassed over or neglected in the discussions in the House. Yet 
 to me this is the very turning point in this whole discussion. There 
 was a civil war ; is that a fact or is it not ? If you go over to Arhng- 
 ton and see the thousands of graves marked " unknown " aud observe 
 the tens of thousands lying Imried there, you will not question for a 
 moment that there was a civil war. Was that civil war organized in 
 all the forms of. a regularly organized war ? That cannot be dis- 
 puted. Then the first fact which I sball take as fixed is that" there 
 was a civil war existing between the Confederate States aud the 
 United States. 
 
 But how did England regard this question? England had recog- 
 nized the belligereut rights of the confederacy. She had said that 
 there was a civil war existing. Then the fact is there was a civil 
 war. England said tliere was. The United States also gave her assent 
 to the same proposition. lu the case of Coolidge vs. Guthrie, 17 Law 
 Register, page 24, the followiug statement of the case is made by 
 Judge Swayue : 
 
 "When the transaction occurred, the rebellion had risen to the proportions of a 
 civil war and was fully flagrant. Arkansas was enemy's territory and all the 
 property there was enemy property. Cotton was an article of foreign and domestic 
 commerce. It was one of the main sinews of the power of the insurgents. They 
 relied upon it for the purchase of arms and other munitions of war, and chiefly to 
 supply tliem with financial means for the prosecution of the strife. Important 
 belligerent rights were conceded to them by the Government of the nation. Their 
 soldiers, when captured, were treated as prisoners of war. Tliey were exchanged 
 aud not held for treason. Their vessels when captured were 'dealt with by our 
 prize courts. Their ports were blockaded and the blockades proclaimed to neu- 
 tral powers, and property found on board such vessels belonging to persons residing 
 in the rebel States was uniformly held to be confiscable as enemy property. All 
 these things were done as if the war had been a pubUc one with a foreign power. 
 
 Then in the courts of the United States it seems the nation is found 
 as accepting the fact that there was a civil war in existence between 
 the Confederate States and the United States. 
 
 The same view is corroborated in the case of the Sarah Starr, 
 (Blatchford's Prize Cases, pages 73 and 74 :) 
 
 The hostilities commenced upon the United States by the seceded or Confederate 
 States of the South have produced a state of war between the two communities, 
 as consequent to which the United States are authoiizcd to employ* against their 
 enemies the means of resistance aud attack which are justifiable under the law of 
 nations by land or naval forces. 
 
 Before I go further in reference to this case, I will state this : The 
 claimant of this property was a northern man, whose property was
 
 in the South, and it was confiscated under the laws of war because it 
 was within the territory of the then enemy. 
 
 Both of these vessels and their cargoes, so far as plaimert, were enenir property 
 within the principles of public law. " The sale of the Sarah Starr was neiiotiate'd 
 and made by George C. Munro, when he was a merchant trading in an enemy fort, 
 to Gravely, also domiciled and canyiug on trade in such place. That sale was 
 unlawful as to Mimro, even if, as he contends, he was then a resident of a loyal 
 Stat«, because it was in fraud of his obligations and duties toward his own gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 So the United States courts acceiited the fact that a state of war 
 existed. 
 
 In the case of Phillips rs. Hatch, which I will not cite now, the 
 same fact is stated equally fully and broadly. 
 
 Then, as a fact, war existed, and a.s a legal fact the laws of war 
 were applied and accepted by the Government of the United States. 
 Belligerent rights had been acknowledged by Great Britain. Then 
 as to all parties who could in any way have an interest there was a 
 state of war fully accepted as existing at the time of this transaction. 
 There being civil war then the same law applied that applies between 
 foreign nations. Under the law of nations the same rules or interna- 
 tional principles which ruled as to foreign nations ruled as to this. 
 
 And here I may say that we must bear in mind tiiat war has its 
 laws just as well as its arms. "We may not justify the one or the 
 other, but it has been found by human experience that the evils of 
 war are much more mitigated by accepting the laws of war than to 
 go upon the principles which existed prior to the recognition of inter- 
 national law. So. whether we justify the conclusions or condemn 
 them, whatever those conclusions are, if they are the conclusions of 
 law it is our duty to accept them as being the lesser of two evils. 
 
 The next propo.sitiou I pur})ose to estaljlish by authority is that in 
 a civil war, unless there be express congressional legislatiou to the 
 contrary, the same rules of international law apply as though it had 
 been a foreign war. 
 
 The first authority I cite on this proposition is Yattel's Law of Na- 
 tions, section 4".2T : 
 
 But when a nation becomes divided into two partie.s absolutely independent, and 
 no longer at^knowledging a common superior, tlie State i.s dissolved, and the war 
 between the two p:irties stands on thi^ same ground, in every rijspect, as a public 
 war between two ditiVsrent nations. Whether a republic be split into two factions, 
 each maintaining tbat it alone constitutes the body of a State — or a kingdom bo 
 divided between two coiiiiietitors for tlie crown — the nation is severed into two jiar- 
 ties, who will mutually term eadi otlier rebels. Thus there exists in tlu> state two 
 seijarate bodies, who ]>retend to al)solute in<lei)endenee, an<l between wliom tlioro 
 is no judge. (^ 293.) They decide their "luarrel bv arms, as two ditVeri'iit nations 
 wouUt do. The obligation to observer tlie coiiiiiion laws of war toward eacli other is 
 therefori- absolute, indispensably binding on botli parlies, and tlio same which tho 
 law of nature imposes on all nations in transactions between state and stiite. 
 
 The next autliority I will cite in pursuance of that is tlio Santis- 
 siraa Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, 'i^^. It is confirmatory of the fact that tlie 
 L'niteil States enforced the laws of war and acted on the l:iw of na- 
 tions when Spain and her relicllioiis cohjnios were contesting conc(!rn- 
 jug the independence of the latter. 
 
 During the existence of tlu' civil war between S]>ain and her colonies, and |)t'e- 
 viouH to the ackiiowledgnient of tlic indi-]>eiidi'Mi'i- of tin- latter by thi' t'nilfd 
 States, the colonies were ileenied by us lielligerent nations, and entilli-il, ho tar as 
 conceius n«, t!o all the sovereign riglits of war against their enemy. 
 
 So tliat if a civil war is existing as a f.ir-t, unless there 1)0 soinecon- 
 gre.s.sidiial legi.sladoii to changi! tlie hiw in ivlVieuce to it, (lie law of 
 nations applies to and rules the case.
 
 10 
 
 We will also cite the case of Phillips vs. Hatch, 1 Dillon's Circwit 
 Court Eeports, 576, on this same principle: 
 
 "Were the rules and doctrines of international law at all to apply to this conflict, 
 or were the questions arising out of it to be wholly determined by the municipal 
 law ? This general question first came bef oi-e the Supreme Court in'the Prize cases, 
 a Blact. C35, 1862. It has since been frequently before that tribunal. (See The 
 Venice, i! Wallace, '258; Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, ibid., 404; The Hampton, ,5 "Wal- 
 lace, 372; "William Bagley, ibid., 377; The Ouachita Cotton, 6 ibid., 521; Hanger 
 vs. Abbott, ibid., 532; Cappell os. Hall, 7 ibid., 542; McKee vs. tJuited States, 8 
 ibid., 1G3; the Grapeshot, 9 ibid., 129.) 
 
 These cases all apply or declare to be applicable to the rebellion 
 the general doctrines of public law which govern in wars between 
 independent states. 
 
 So that authorities in international law and our highest court 
 have said that the laws of war were to be applied to this rebellion, 
 as though it had been a contest between two iudependent nations. 
 This being the fact, then what is the law of war with reference to 
 property captured ? What becomes of the title when the property 
 is captured ? is the next question. Let me say, without citing author- 
 ities, that it is indisputable that whenever a vessel is captured from 
 that moment the municipal title is divested, if the vessel is not within 
 twenty-tour hours taken from the captor. If not taken within 
 twenty-four hours there is no municipal title unless by the doctrine of 
 postliminy, which is a war right and never obtains after peace has 
 been made or an amnesty proclaimed, in existence whatever. When- 
 ever those vessels were captured, there being civil war and the law 
 of nations applying to that war, the title of the individual was for- 
 ever divested unless the vessels were recaptured within twenty-four 
 hours ; and this was not done with reference to any of this property 
 for which recovery was had before the Geneva tribunal. We will 
 cite the authorities to establish this before we proceed further. 
 
 The first authority I will cite on that point is one perhaps not alto- 
 gether unfamiliar. I quote from Blackstone's Commentaries, book 
 second, page 400. Speaking of the title by occupancy, and the prop- 
 erty as to which title by occupancy may be obtained, the commenta- 
 tor says : 
 
 It hath also been adjudged that, if an enemy take the goods of an Englishman, 
 which are afterward retaken by another subject of this kingdom, the former owner 
 shall lose his property therein, and it shall be indefeasibly vested iu the second 
 taker. 
 
 That is, if these vessels have been taken by the confederate cruisers 
 and retaken by another citizen of the United States, the title would 
 be indefeasibly vested in the second taker, and the prior owner's 
 title would be forever gone : 
 
 TTnless they were retaken the same day and the owner before sunset puts in his 
 claim of property. "Which is agreeable to the law of nations as undeistood in the 
 time of Grotius, even with regard to captures made at sea, which were held to be 
 the property of the captors after a possession of tvventy-four hours. 
 
 The next authority I will cite in stipport of that proposition is Hal- 
 leck on International Law, page c'66 : 
 
 "With respect to things taken by the enemy, the Eoman law considered them as 
 withdrawn from the category of legal relations during the period of the enemy's 
 possession of them. If retaken by their former owner, they became his by the re- 
 capture ; but, if retaken by the State, they were considered as Viooty or prizes of 
 war, the oiiginal light of property being extinguished by the intervening ho.stile 
 possession. 
 
 Then again on page 870 : 
 
 But the diificu'ty of recognizing things of this nature — 
 
 Speaking of personal property — 
 
 with any degree of certainty, and the endless disputes which would spring from a 
 revendication of them —
 
 11 
 
 As -^re fiud -^vell illustrated in this case — 
 have introdncefl a contrary practice in modem times: and the title of the former 
 owner to all booty is considered a« completely diveste d liy a fii-m possession of the 
 captor of twenty-four hours. 
 
 Then he gives the law with reference to real property, whicli is not 
 relevant to this case. 
 
 The next authority we cite ou that proposition is volume 3 of Phil- 
 limore's International Law, page 504 : 
 
 "With respect to rn/,vahle property or prize captured in a war by sea. all such 
 property is vested in the captor. If he part with- them to a neutral, the formtr 
 proprietor is not entitled to claim them. 
 
 Then again, on page 509 : 
 
 Byntershock. however, agrees with Grotius that movable gooAs are now. without 
 distinction, subjects of prize, and dive.sted of the privileges of postliminy. As 
 goods captured from the enemy, he argues, vest in the captor, it follows, when re- 
 captured, the J' vest iu the recaptor. 
 
 The exception to this we will state in a moment : That the doc- 
 trine of postliminy extends the time within which the recapture oc- 
 curs, l>ut never extends beyond the re-establishment of peace. An 
 amnesty in civil war is the same as a treaty of peace in case of foreign 
 war. and that amnesty occurred before there was any recovery of this 
 property back. 
 
 The next authority I cite is Hopnor vs. Appleby, 5 Mason, pages 75^ 
 76. I read from the opinion of Judge Story : 
 
 The orisinal ownership of the enemy is entirelv divested by the capture; and 
 though a title good against all the world may not be conveyed to a neutral vendee 
 by the cajjtors unless there be a regular condemuatioiyis prize, or a treaty of peace 
 which coutiniis. by implication, the existing title and state of things, yet thi» 
 does not interfere with the geneial right of the captors to sell the property or dis- 
 pose of it as rightful proprietors Jure belli and possessors de facto. 
 
 Then with reference to the effect of destruction being the same as 
 that of sale : 
 
 The cai)tors had a plenarv dominion over the property by the capture, and niight. 
 80 far as she was concerue'l. have burned or de.-tiojed it, or disposed of it iu any 
 other manner which they pleased. 
 
 We claim that these authorities establish that by the capture what- 
 ever municipal title exLsted as to any of this pro]ierty was totally 
 and entirely divested. Then on what ground docs tlie doctrine of 
 subrogation ou which the insurance comitanies claim stand? They 
 are subrogated they say to the rights of the owner of the ves.sid. I 
 admit it. If there l)e any f-pcs rtciqurartdi the insurance companies 
 are rightly by law subrogated to it ; but if there be uo eyes recttijerandi^ 
 they are not subrogated. 
 
 Now, if tJie title, was utterly and entirely extinguished as to the 
 owner of the ve.s.sel from the time of her capture, what was there of 
 apes rtx'iiiHfdiuli as to which the.se insurance companies can be subro- 
 gated ? Th»-y insinx'd under tin- laws of war ; they took the risks of 
 a state of war. as well its laws as its arms. Yon might conceive one 
 of the insuiancf agents going to a sliip-owncr and stating the price 
 of insurancf. The shiji-owner might object that the price was too 
 high. The agent would reply that they l)ad to take tlie risk of the 
 property being ca])tnred, and if it was captured tiiere woubl be no 
 spes reeuptraudi. That is doubtless the way the insurance agents 
 talked, and it is good law. Tliey assumed The risks f)f war when they 
 charged war premiums. This is one of the very risks they bargained 
 for, because the law of the laud euters into an«I constitutes a jiart of 
 every contra'-r. 
 
 Then these parti<'.'<. knowing that in the event of cajiture (he title of 
 iho ow!Kr wiis f.uvver gone, charged for that and received llieir i)ay
 
 12 
 
 for it, so that they liave ueitlier law nor equity ux)ou which, to base 
 their alleged right of subrogation. 
 
 Subrogation never exists as to a mere moral or imperfect right. We 
 may illustrate that in this way: A wealthy father might advise his 
 son to eater into some commercial enterprise regarded as likely to be 
 remunerative. The son, upon the advice of the father, enters into 
 the undertaking and perhaps insures the vessel in which he ships his 
 cargo abroad. That vessel is lost. In that event would there be such 
 a thing as subrogating the insurance company to the moral right 
 which the father might feel to be his duty to recognize in reference 
 to re-imbur.".iug his sou ? Subrogation does not exist in regard to moral 
 right. 
 
 These parties made their contract on the very basis that in case the 
 vessel was captured their spe? reciiperancli was gone. They made a« 
 war premium lit for that risk. They have neither in equity nor in 
 law a right to claim anything more than any other citizen should claim. 
 That is, if they have actually lost they shall l)e re-imbursed. The 
 Treasury Dei)artment of the United States under all circumstances 
 has always denied that insurance companies were entitled to subroga- 
 tion. In support of that I quote from page 133 of the Digest of De- 
 cisions of the Second Comptroller, section 974 : 
 
 Certain steamboats wkile impressed into the military service of the Uniteil States 
 vrere destroyed by tire, without any fault or neglisjence of the owners. The lisks 
 taken by the underwriters were liquidated and paid for, and claim by them, as sub- 
 rogated to all the rights of the assured, made under the act of March 3, 1849, for the 
 amount thus paid ; but it was held that the piinciple of equitaijle subrogation ap- 
 plied only in favor of the Government, the underwriters, as for the owners, having 
 by their i)olicies of insurjpce pro tanto agreed to incur the risk. 
 
 Therefore, as a fact, if they had taken pains to inquire indej^end- 
 ently of the law which they were bound to know, they would have 
 found that subrogation was never recognized in such cases. 
 
 And here it may not be malapropos to refer to a discussion which 
 occurred in the Senate. The honorable Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Thur- ' 
 MAX,] for whose character and judgment alike I have a regard closely 
 bordeiing upon reverence, I apprehend was misled somewhat in his 
 judgment in this case by a case which he there cited. And the same 
 view was taken by the honorable chairman of the Committee on the 
 Judiciary [Mr. Kxott] in this dicussion. That was the case of Com- 
 egys vs. \'asse : 
 
 A ship that was insured was illegally captured by the Spaniards. In the course 
 of time Tasse became bankrupt, itc. 
 
 That is, the ship was Wegnlhj captured by the Spaniards. If in time 
 of peace a nation with whom we are at peace captures a vessel be- 
 longing to a citizen of the United States, that is an Illegal capture ; but 
 if the vessel is captured by a nation with which we are at war, then 
 it is a letjal capture. This case of Comegys vs. Vasse turned upon the 
 legalty of the capture. The right of subrogation was admitted in 
 that case because there was a distinct, living, tangible right and title 
 in the party who had been wronged by the illegal capture. The rul- 
 ing in that case is entirely iuaiipropiiate to this, in that under the 
 law of nations this was a legal capture, and divested the municipal 
 title. Whereas in the case of the Spanish capture that was an ille- 
 gal capture, and the municipal title continued to live just as much 
 after the cai>ture as before. It was a' chavige of property in possession 
 to property in action only ; the right of property existed the same 
 after the illegal capture as before. 
 
 But the right. of property did not continue to exist in the case of 
 these vessels captured by the confederates, because that cai)ture was 
 made in a state of war. I think, therefore, the Spanish case misled
 
 to some extent the judgments of those who are nsnally so thoroughly, 
 informed and for whose opinion we hare such unbounded respect. 
 
 We claim, then, that there was no municipal titip left in anyone 
 as to which there could be any subrogation. Then how does that 
 award stand ? Just in this position : it was recovered for a breach 
 of neutral duty, recovered by the United States against Great Britain, 
 not upon any municipal title, but upon the national paramount title 
 of the United States as a sovereign. Then Avhat should be done with 
 this money ? The nation shonld be simi)ly and fully just ; if tb^re be 
 one single" dollar that should be paid back to Great Britain it should 
 go back there, because justice is our highest duty. But there is no 
 evidence and no inference to be derived from anything that has trans- 
 pired in the present examination astoany injustice having been done 
 to Great Britain. We are to assume, as we would with reference to 
 any conrt, that those who acted upon this case considered it care- 
 ftiily ; that they were honest and competent, and that they rendered 
 judgment for no more tlian was right, l^nless somebody establishes 
 affirmatively that the tribunal did give judgment for more tlian was 
 destroyed, vre owe no duties to Great ^ritain so far as that question 
 is concerned. 
 
 Then as to the claims of citizens, the fund is left in the possession 
 of the United States to be distributed to those who according to the 
 policy of the nation and the principles of natural justice would be 
 entitled to receive it. The national policy is to encotirage commerce. 
 I'liis fund is just as free for distribution as are the vessels captured 
 by United States men-of-war. The capture of any prize by a United 
 States vessel during war vests the title in the United States; but we 
 have passeil certain laws by which the Government distributes this 
 as prize-money among seamen in recognition of the meritorious serv- 
 ice of thfise whose valor has won it. This is our policy with the view 
 <of maintaining energy, vigor, and gallantry in our Navy. 
 
 Now this fund stands in just tlie same relation. Here is property 
 vested in the United States by Airtue of her paramoujit title. It is 
 her interest and her duty to distribute it to that branch of industry 
 from which it has been derived. We desire to encourage commerce. 
 The Goveniment invited citizens under her llag'to go into all parts of 
 the world. They rendered to her the duty of allegiance ; she i)rom- 
 ised to them the* correlative duty of protection. She really had en- 
 tered into the obligation to protect these parties who had invested in 
 commerce and whose merdiandise was destroyed or who were obliged 
 to pay war premiums. Then her duty is to jierfonu that promise. 
 The promise was made as much to one as to another. The (iovern- 
 ment is bound now, as I understand, by no kind of municipal title, 
 but is simply bound to <lo that which national policy, national honor, 
 or the princijiles of siin|de, natural justice may dictate. 
 
 Haviiig.invited her citizens to enter thus into commerce, which is 
 one of the great sources of (mr national wealth, it was the duty «f 
 the Government to ]irotect that connnerce. She was unable to jiro- 
 tect it at that time because of the civil war. She has nyw recovered 
 a fund from which to furnish indemnity in lieu of the protection she 
 owed. ■^i 
 
 But it will be asked, " Wliy not give it to all our citizens or leave 
 it in the Treasury as a common fund?"' Because, these parties, in 
 consideration of the invitation of the (Jovernnieiit to enter into com- 
 merce, risked and lost that which otliers di<l not. The i)artieH who 
 owned these vessels performed every iluty tliat any other citizen jier- 
 formed ; but they ran this adilitional risk and incnrreil this additional 
 loss. 'J'lie Government owed to them this ad<litioual ]>rotectioM,.
 
 14 
 
 which it failed to give them. Hence tliey are entitled to be remuuer- 
 ;ated. Those who lost vessels which were not, as they say, incul- 
 pated — but in my v^w of the case it is unimportant whether they were 
 inculpated or excuTiiated, because there is no title to this fund in any 
 citizen — those who lost vessels which were destroyed by these cruisers 
 before they were inculpated were just as much invited to enter into this 
 <50mmerce as those that were destroyed by cruisers a f ter they were incul- 
 pated. We might take a single illustration, the Delphine. Before the 
 Shenandoah passed into Melbourne she was alleged to be exculpated;' 
 after she passed into Melbourne and came out she was inculpated. ' 
 She destroyed the Delphine perhaps twenty-four hours before she 
 went into Melbourne ; and twenty-four hours afterward she de- 
 stroyed another vessel. Now the duty of the Government toward the 
 •owner of the Delphine was just as high as toward the other vessel. 
 The right of protection was just the same in each case. Both par- 
 ties had rendered the same allegiance ; both incurred the same loss ; 
 hence natural eq)iity says that they should receive the same com- 
 pensation. Therefore I would from this fund make compensation 
 to all those who actually lost ships and to whom the United States 
 owed protection. 
 
 Then again, with reference to the war-premium claimants. The 
 honorable chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in his remarks on 
 this subject, said that this war-premium business was a bet on their 
 part. Not at all; it was a contract, with all the relations, i^rovisions, 
 and incidents of a contract. He says it was entered into in ordef 
 that the owner of the ship might sleep soundly at night. But the 
 insured gave his allegiance to his Government that he might sleep 
 soundly at night. Perhaps he took his gun upon his shoulder and 
 risked his life that he might sleep soundly at night. Why, then, 
 should he be required to pay this additional sum that he might sleep 
 soundly at night? For he has paid all that anybody else had paid 
 for the same thing. But it may be alleged that this was a voluntary 
 payment. If it was a voluntary payment and a reckless one, it would 
 not be justifiable to re-imburse him; but if it was a voluntary payment, 
 such as an ordinarily-prudent business man would regard as justifi- 
 able and necessary and warranted by the circumstances, he had a 
 Tight to make this payment and has a right now to his share of this 
 fund, because the Government owed to him this i^rotectiou which he 
 had to provide for himself. 
 
 Or we might arrive at the conclusion by another way. If the doc- 
 trine of subrogation — which as a legal doctrine does not exist in the 
 case — be recognized, it might be said to the insurance companies : 
 " Why not subrogate one step further and make compensation to the 
 man who lost instead of him who made the money ? Why not sub- 
 rogate the man who re-imbursed you to your right ?" But the true 
 ground upon which to place this question is that of the correlative 
 duties of allegiance and protection: and these men were eiititled to 
 * protection without paying their war premiums, so that they might 
 sleep soundly at night, as the honorable chairman of the Judiciary 
 Committee has stated.. So that these two classes of claimants are 
 entitled to their share of this fund, and entitled justly. 
 
 Then the third class which my amendment would leave provision 
 at some future time for bringing in as a separate element are those 
 who suffered actual physical or bodily loss inthese transactions. He 
 who lost a hand or a limb is just as much a sufferer as he who lost a 
 "vessel, and ought to be re-imbursed just as much. Hence my amend- 
 ment provides that after paying the two classes to which I have ad- 
 verted, the balance shall remaiu in the Tceasury to be distributed by
 
 If) 
 
 future congressional legislation to those other parties who have suf- 
 fered direct losses from which the Governmeut, if able, should have 
 protected them. 
 
 These are the views we have with reference to this whole transac- 
 tion : tirst, this money was recovered upon the paramount title of 
 the nation, and upon no iudividiuxl title ; second, there was no mu- 
 nicipal or individual title in existence at the time of its recovery, and, 
 as a consequence from that, there can be no subrogation; and third, 
 the conelative duties of protection and allegiance require th^ that 
 class of men who sufiered from these cniisers, when others did not, 
 should have this indemnity extended to them in order to repair their 
 loss, because we did not prevent them from suffering it. 
 
 So we claim, then, this is the course which should be adopted. We 
 stand as a sovereign, above every muTiicipal law or technicality. We 
 own this fund simply to do right. The nation, according to the an- 
 cient view of a sovereign, was endowed with the right or prerogative 
 of personal dignity. That is the special pre-eminence which the 
 sovereign lias above all other persons and the ordinary course of law 
 by right of sovereign dignity. We stand above the ordinary course 
 of law to look ui)ou this whole field in its full breadth, standing, as 
 it were, as the vicegerent of the Creator himself to do just what is 
 right and make whole every one who hae lost in this transaction. 
 We are not to view it through any translucent medium of municipal 
 law, but through the transparent ether of absolute distinct natiu'al 
 justice. 
 
 We ask this House, then, to adopt the amendments we have intro- 
 duced, so that instead of turning over to insurance companies who 
 have already made a large amount of money, or if they have not, the 
 pre.seut law re-imbnrses all they have lost, leave it to those who have 
 suffered absolute personal lossorany other direct loss which may have 
 been or may be shown to have taken place 
 
 Mr. I3LAXD. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to explain 
 what is the difference between the proposition he advocates and the 
 present law and the act of the last Congress. 
 
 Mr. JEXKS. The act of the last Congress only provided that those 
 whose vessels ha<l been destroyed by the inculpated cruisers should re- 
 ceive their pay — that is. by those they claimed or thought had entered 
 into tlie award — and also to pay insurance cimijianies all the loss 
 they had been suljjected to botli by the destruction of the vessels 
 which were destroyed by the inculpated or exculpated cruisers in ex- 
 cess of the war premiums. This goes further and provides for all ves- 
 sels which wert! actually destroyed by the cout'edeiate cruisers. 
 
 Mr. LOKD. On the high seas. 
 
 Mr. JENK8. On the high seas, of course ; and those who have paid 
 war j)remiums, that is, those who had toluruish thelrown ])rotertioii 
 outside of that the trovernmcnt was al)le to give them. The l)alance, 
 I say, should rmiaiii for future disposition. 
 
 Mr. ULAND. Does it pay the actual loss to the war-premiv.m men 
 or >fhat they have not been paid back ? 
 
 Mr. .JENK.S. Of course this billonly i)ays the actual loss to war- 
 premium men. As I view this, there is no right in any m.ui to claiiu 
 anj' profit upon this wliatever. It is finly the loss which sliould ll(^ 
 re-imbursed, because profit must be the result of li*gal right, and, :ih 
 there is no Irgal right, nothing Imt impfi-fcct riglit for any one to go 
 upon or iuf)ral <luty, there lan be ciaiun-d no profit by one man as 
 against anotlicr in tliis distriliution. 
 
 Mr. MILLS. Did the insurance companies pay for the vessels which 
 were destroyed by the confederate cruisers ?
 
 e> 
 
 16 
 
 Mr. JENKS. Tliey paid for some of them, and thoy claim the whole 
 fund in consideration of having j>aid for them. 
 
 Mr. MILLS. Do they claim the whole fund in eonsideratioii of 
 having paid for part of them f 
 
 Mr. JENKS. For vessels destroyed by the inculpated vessels which 
 they had insured. 
 
 Mr. MILLS. Do any owners' of any of the vessels which had been 
 insured and received their insurance claim any part of it? 
 
 Mr. JENKS. They do not, as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. MILLS. Only those who were not insured ? 
 
 Mr. JENKS. Only those who were not insured are claiming any 
 portion of the fund, as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I should like to ask the gentleman a 
 (jnestion. I understand the gentleman to have said in the course of 
 his remarks that at the time these commissioners met at Geneva,, 
 where they determined upon the amount due from the British gov- 
 ernment to the Government of the United States, these individual 
 claims had not been presented ? 
 
 Mr. JENKS. I say the individual titles were not considered. It 
 was only upon the paramount title of the nation they passed, and. 
 there was no individual title before the tribunal. 
 
 Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. Bat there must have been some consid- 
 eration of the various claims made. 
 
 Mr. JENKS. Only as to the value of the vessels. 
 
 Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. Before the amount was fixed how did 
 they arrive at any amount which was supposed to be due from the 
 government of Great Britain? 
 
 Mr. JENKS.. They fixed it by the value of the vessels which were- 
 actually destroyed. 
 
 Mr. LORD. And their cargoes. 
 
 Mr. JENKS. Yes ; by the value of the vessels and cargoes de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. Did they not take into account indi- 
 vidual claims ? 
 
 Mr. JENKS. They never did : as I vmderstand it, they only took 
 into account the nation's claim by virtue of her paramount title, and 
 no individual title was before that tribiinal or could have been there. 
 And tlie)'e ivas tio indiddual title in existence to present there. That is 
 what I have endeavored to demonstrate. 
 
 Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I understand that a great many indi- 
 vidual claims have been admitted and agreed to be paid. Now the 
 gentleman contends, as I understand him — for I did not hear all his 
 remarks — that if there is a balance of this amount of fifteen millions 
 and no farther claims are admitted to be just and due, then it should 
 remain as belonging to the United States Government ? 
 
 Mr. JENKS. It would remain, provided there are no losses that 
 the United States ought to compensate. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Penn- 
 sylvania has expired. ^ 
 
 Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. Ju8<^ allow me another question, "ap- 
 pose there should be no claim and that a balance was left of four or 
 live million dollars? 
 
 Mr. JENKS. It would belong to the United States, unless some 
 other jnst claim thereto should appear. 
 
 Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. Docs the gentleman l^old that it should 
 be covered into the Treasury ? 
 
 Mr. JENKS. I hold nothing about that now, as the fact does not, 
 yet appear.
 
 THE GENEVA AWARD. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. ELBPtlDGE G. LAPHAM, 
 
 OF NEW YORK. 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 JULY 6, 1876. 
 
 » ♦ «- 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 167C.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON ELBRIDGE G. LATHAM. 
 
 Oil tbt- bill. ()1. 11. No. -2683,) reported bvtlieComniittoeou till' Ju.liciary, forlbedis- 
 tributiou of the uiiappropiiated moneys of the Geneva award. 
 
 Mr. LAPHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is uot my pmpose to enter upon a 
 detailed exaiiiiuation of the preci.se mode in whicli the remainder of 
 the Innd in question shall be distributed by Congress among the 
 various classes of claimants thereto. Agreeing in the main upon 
 that question with the views stated by the majority in their report, I 
 shall briefly discuss the question as to the status of this fund and 
 the gent-nii duty of the (ioveniuient in respect to it and its distribu- 
 tion. 
 
 Three impurtaiit ends to the Government of the United Statt s were 
 aimed at and sought to be attained by the Geneva arbitration : 
 
 First. An acknowledgment on the part of Great Britain that she 
 hail been guilty of a violation of the rights of neutrality and an 
 ajjology therefor. 
 
 Sec<mdly. The establishment of the principle or doctrine that no 
 neutral shall be held liabh; f(»i' indirect or c<)nse<|iienti:il damages in 
 case of a violation of neutral obligations, but only for the direct losses 
 resulting thcrcfroni. 
 
 Thirdly. That national gritnaiices may be jteaceably and honorably 
 adjusted by the mode of arbitration, so that war and all its attend- 
 ant evils and sacrilices may b<? avoided. 
 
 In onler to accomplish tlitise ends the United States early took the 
 ground no claim for any indirect or conse<iiiential damages shonld bo 
 insisted on by the Goveninicnt, and that, as bctwtcn (Jrcat Britain 
 and the United States, tin; higii tribunal of arbitration weie at 11b- 
 ♦^rty to inononnce against such allow ;'nc<' as a jii'incipltr of interna- 
 tional law. 
 
 In order to accompli.sli tluM' ends and leave tin', (Jovernnu^nt en- 
 tirely free to act as its interest might seem to dictate, the I'resident, 
 in his message, in l>cccnil>er, l-'TO, rcconnnendcd flic piircliasc of all 
 iiMlividnal claims in the following language: 
 
 I tlieiefore reroMimeiiil to ("iinjjreM.s to aiitliiiri/.e the !i|ipiiiiitiiic'ut ot a coiunii.s- 
 fion to take iiioiit nt tlm aiii'iiiiit and tln^ ownershiit of ilicse. several claiiiiN. ' ' " 
 and that aiitliority he j:ivi-ii foi' tin- si-ttleniiMit of thesr claiiiiM hy the I'niled Slates, 
 HO that the ( tovcniimnt Hhall have tin- ownerHliip of the pri\ ati; elainis, as XM'll ai4 
 lilt' reM]MiiiHible eoiilKd of all the diiiiaiids a;^ainsl (irrat JJiltaiii. 
 
 JIa<l thisbcen done, it is self-evident the United States would liave 
 ]iaid for or become liable to )iay to every indi\ idnal having a claim for 
 loss tiie amount thereof or sncli sum aH might have, bi-cn fixed by 
 agreement, and in that event the smii awarded, whatever it niiglit 
 have be*Mi Mould liave belonged aliKuliilely lo the I'liited States.
 
 Belore there was time to perfect and cany out this recommeuilati<ni 
 of the President it became uecessary for the United States to act iu the 
 premises, and so great were the promised advantages of the arbitra- 
 tion, that the Government decided to act without acquiring the rights 
 or claims of individuals ; and yet, in order to attain those ends, it was 
 necessary that the United States suould assume the control of, and the 
 right to release and forever discharge, all such individual claims, as 
 Avell as those of the Government, and to fully release the government of 
 Great Britain therefrom. Acting in such an emergency and for such, 
 high ends, let us see how careful the United States were not to become 
 in any manner committed or crippled in the disposition of the money 
 awarded when it should have been received by us. 
 
 In the instructions given by Secretary Fish to Messrs. Gushing, 
 Evarts, and Waite, counsel of the United States, he said : 
 
 The President desires to have the subject discussed as one between the two gov- 
 ernments, and he directs me to UTjre upon you strongly to secure, if possible, the 
 award of a sum in gross. In the discussion of this question, and in^the treatment 
 of the entire case, you will be careful not to commit the Government as to the dis- 
 position of what may be awarded. * * * It is possible that there may be duplicate 
 claims for some of the property alleged to have been captured or destroyed, as in 
 the cases of insurers and insured. The Govermnent wishes to hold itself free to 
 decide as to the rights and claims of insurers upon the termination of the case. If 
 the value of the property captured or destroyed be recovered in the name of the 
 Government, the distribution of the amount' recovered will be made by this Gov- 
 ernment without committal as to the mode of distribution. It is expected that all 
 such committal be avoided iu the aigument of counsel. — Papers, cCc, volume 2, 
 page 414 
 
 A gross sum was awarded and received by the United States iufuU 
 of all claims of every description, and the government of Great 
 Britain was fully and forever released and discharged fi'om all such 
 claims. 
 
 It is obvious that here is no case of an express trust. This money 
 was not received or obtained with the privity and consent of any of 
 the individual claimants. On the contrary, the Government, for the 
 reasons I have stated, assumed to treat the entire demands as its own^ 
 and to deal with Great Britain upon the theory it was the owner of 
 all these claims, and had the right to arbitrate and negotiate in 
 respect thereto, and to receive as its own whatever sum might be 
 awarded by the tribunal of arbiti'ation. 
 
 Yet this money is not in fact the money of the Government, is not 
 claimed by it, but it is conceded it belongs to some one or more of 
 the various classes of claimants for damages by reason of the unlaw- 
 ful acts of the British government. 
 
 What, then, is the tenure by which this money is held by the United 
 States, and what is the duty of Congress in providing for its distribu- 
 tion? 
 
 It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the analogies in familiar cases in 
 equity are complete. 
 
 A person takes the custody and control of the iiersonal estate of a 
 deceased individual and deals with it as his own. The law converts 
 him into a trustee, and makes him lialjle as an administrator dc son 
 tort. 
 
 A person standing in loco parentis to one or more minors assumes 
 the control and disposition of property belonging to such minor or mi- 
 nors. The law converts him into a trustee for such minor. A stranger 
 cr one of several cestui que trusts intrudes upon an express trust, 
 and assumes the whole management and control of the trust prop- 
 erty. The law converts him into a trustee, and renders him liable to 
 account more strictly even tlinu il he bad been appointed by the 
 court to execute .such trust.
 
 An attorney pnichases the property of his client at a judicial sale 
 dn his own name : the htw converts him into a trustee for such 
 -client. 
 
 Kow the Government of the United States has assumed the power 
 and authority to deal with all private claims as its own : has received 
 a gross sum therefor: and has released and forever discharged all such 
 claims. It is ohvious to my mind that this money is held in t/ust in 
 the sense I have named, and that the trust is as broad aud compreheu- 
 sive as the claims ichkh were satisfied and dischargtd by the payment anil 
 receipt of such gross sura. 
 
 Assuming the correctness of this position it follows as a funda- 
 mental principle that iu the distribution of the fund the highest 
 equity is tirst \o prevail and each equity in its turn according to its 
 validity. Following this rule the insurers who were actual losers 
 have already been jirovided for and paid. It would seem that the 
 actual losses of property uninsured are equitably upon the same foot- 
 ing. But. Mr. Speaker, as I said iu the outset, I do not propose to 
 tliscuss the detail of distribution, contenting myself with referring 
 to the general principles upoti which I think it should be made. 
 
 Here then is no express trust, no limitation upon -the general power 
 of distribution, except such as the rules of equity impose; and within 
 that range Congress is left free to dispose of this money. 
 
 Xorwas it in the power of the government of Great Britain to place 
 any limitation or check upon the power to distribute this fund. She 
 was the wrong-doer and cannot be permitted by objecting to the allow- 
 ance of one claim or class of claims to deprive such clainuiuts of their 
 cfjuitable rights. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, gentlemen who differ with the views I have ex- 
 pressed say by the terms of the award the money belongs to a class of 
 thiimauts, the insurance com}ianies, ajul that good faith demands they 
 should be preferred. I cannot concur in this view. I have very 
 brieliy endeavored to show the money was not paid or received for 
 any such purpose. I do not deny the obligation of good faith iu the 
 disposition of this money, ^^'lly are the i)ersons to whom I have re- 
 ferred in supposing cases — the administrator dc son fort, the person 
 in loco parentis, the intrudi-r upon an express trust, the attorney pur- 
 chasing his client's property — Iicld liaVile as trustees ' It is, sir, be- 
 cause f/ood faith re/jiiires it. 
 
 It was a remark of Michael Iloflman, iu tlie New York constitu- 
 tional convention of lr^4(J, spfaking of the obligation of the State to 
 its public creditors, that " Good faith is a jewel." 
 
 It is so, Mr. Speaker, between private individuals. It is eminently 
 HO between a government and its citizens. The United States as- 
 Humed to take this money as its own. 'I'lie iuilividiial claimants weie 
 ig7iored. 'J'he pai'ental jiowerof the fJovernnient was exercised for the 
 high ends to whicli I have rel'orred. 'J'iie muney is clearly subject to 
 the operation of tin- broad equities named, and the highest »/'»<></ /en'//* 
 demands at the hands of Congress that actual siitiercrs shall be i>ro- 
 vided for in its distribution.
 
 THE GENEVA AWARD. 
 
 HONEST FAITH THE NATION'S SUPREME NEED. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 .^AAioT, 
 
 LIS, 
 
 M. C, 
 
 IX THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 JULY 1, 187G. 
 
 W ^ S IT I 2Sr Gr T O N" . 
 
 187G.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HOX. BEXJAMIX A. WILLIS 
 
 The House having undev coiisitleration tho hill (IT. U. Xo. 268")) repovteil by the 
 Committee on the JmlicLary for tho di.stribiitioa of tho uuappropriated moneys of 
 the Geneva award — 
 
 Mr. WILLIS said : 
 
 Mr. Speakkii: The discussion iiiangnrated l)y my honorable c'(d- 
 leaguc, Mr. LoiU), possesses rare interest, far exceetling that -which 
 any qnestion of local concern can excite. It relates to action on 
 the part of the United States Government bearing npou the disposi- 
 tion of a trust fund placed in its possession by a\yard and decision of 
 arbitrators pursuant to the treaty of Washington. Fidelity to in- 
 ternational obligations, the maintenance of national honor by strict 
 regard to the behests and conditions imposed by such a\vard and 
 decision, are tlie grave questions to be determined by the action of 
 Congress upon the pending bill. It becomes us to accept as an ap- 
 propriate rule of our conduct in this matter the decision of the Su- 
 preme Courts pronounced by Associate Justice McLean in these words : 
 
 The action of a sovoreiini state will ho characteiized hy a more sorni)nlous re- 
 gard to .justice and l>y a lii;iher sense of morality than belonijs to the ordinary trans- 
 iictious of iuiUviduals. 
 
 Noble words these and fitly spoken then, but far more needed now, 
 when vice is so rampant and corru]»tion so thoroughly infused in all 
 the clianiiels of commerce and government that sinnile virtue has 
 scarcely a single worshiper. 
 
 STATEMENT Ol" THE CASE. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, my honorable colleague has aptly stated what occurred 
 before the Judiciary Committee, the classes of claimants who i)re- 
 sentedtlu:mselves, and some of the facts whicli serve to illustrad' tho 
 history of what are known l)y the generic ten not " thcVlabainailaiins." 
 He has failed, however, and that, too, utterly, to give place and prom- 
 inence to tho.se essential facts which constitute the irs (lentw of tho 
 ca.se, and out of which arise tho legal an<l moral obligations of the 
 United States Government. To do this is the provinct; I have a.ssignod 
 myself. It shall be my laboi- toexliibit tlie ]»recise relation whicli tho 
 Government sustains to the fumi jtaid ]iursuant to tlie a wart! mado 
 by arbitrators at Gencsva. 
 
 It is <|uite a lal)or of supererogation to recite all tho facts of his- 
 tory whicli ar(! in any way, directly or indirectly, connrctrd with tho 
 transaction. I will (;ontine myself to a recital sim[ily of such as 
 specially serve to charai-terizo it. 
 
 During tlie war of reb(!lli<ui, confederate cruisers roamed over tho 
 sea which wen; built in ICnglish shiji-yards and wen> coahid at Kn- 
 glisli liail)ors; they ••oniniitti'd<lciii«-(lat ions upon Atiici'icaii cotnmercc ;
 
 (IcstrojiHl Airu'iican sliip])ini;' ; niiiltiplied risks tf) sufb an extent tbat 
 premiums were eiiliaiiced, tlie war prolonged, and its costs enlarged 
 incalculably, so that every American citizen — the whole country — 
 suffered loss. » 
 
 Pending war, when the peoitle were absorbed v/ith its grand prob- 
 lems and intent only on the salvation of an imperiled Republic, they 
 slept n))on their rights, the Government contenting its(df simply with 
 forwanling claims of its citizens and entering its occasioiuil protests. 
 But when rebellion was suppressed and arms silent, urgent steps were 
 taken ; Great Britain was summoned to answer for its responsibility 
 in permitting confederate cruisers to be built and launched as a curse 
 upon the seas to blight and destroy. Negotiations were entered into 
 with a view of ascertaining the exact measure of such resiiousibility. 
 
 Succeeding the outbursts of fierce hate, of cries for vengeance into 
 which the country in a moment of frenzy and resentment indulged, 
 came a calm, intelligent desire on the part of the better elements of 
 the two nations to adjust amicably and })eriuaDently all existing 
 grievances and differences between them. Such desire found expres- 
 sion in what is known as the treaty of Washington, Avhich constituted 
 the most glorious victory of peace achieved in the history of the 
 world, not surpassed by that great victory of war which determines 
 the perpetuity of our Republic. The former was a fitting sequel of 
 the latter : First, the brotherhood of man ; second, the brotherhood 
 of nations. Such treaty contained everything that the keenest, most 
 scrupulous sense of honor on our part demanded; it expressed regret 
 for wrongs committed; it provided an ample, satisfactory mode for 
 the redress of such wrongs; it prescribed the rules which should con- 
 trol the adjudication. 
 
 Here is the language of the treaty in so far as it has special refer- 
 ence to the purpose of my argument : 
 
 Akticle I. 
 
 "Whereas dilieipnces liave arisen between the Govemraent of the United States 
 and the government of Her Britannic Majesty, and still exist, growinii out of the 
 acts committed Ijy the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generic- 
 ally known as the "Alabama claims ; " and whereas Her Britannic Maiesty has au- 
 thorized her high commissioners and plenipotentiaries to express in a fiiendly 
 spirit the regret felt by Her Majesty's government for the escape, nnder whatever 
 ciicnmstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the 
 depredations committed by those vessels: 
 
 Now, in order to lemove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the 
 United States, and to provide for the speedy settlement of such claims, which are 
 not admitted bv Her Britannic Majesty's government, the high contracting parties 
 agree that all the said claims growing out of acts conunitted by the aforesaid ves- 
 sels, and generically known as the "Alabama claims," shall be referred to a tribu- 
 nal of arbitration, to be composed of five arbitrators, to be aijpointed in tlio follow- 
 ing manner, that is to say : 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 In deciding the matters submitted to the arbitrators they shall be governed by 
 the following three rules, whicli are agreed upon by the liigh contracting parties 
 as rviles to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of international 
 law not inconsistent therewith as the arbitrators shall determuie to have been ap- 
 plicable to the case : 
 
 UULES. 
 
 A neutral government is bound — 
 
 First. To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping 
 within its jurisdiction of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is 
 intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace ; 
 and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisiliction of any 
 vessel intended to cmise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been spe- 
 cially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. 
 
 Second. Kot to permit f)r sutler either belligerent to make use of its ports or 
 waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the 
 renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.
 
 Thiiil. Ti) excicisc due iliiiciniee iu its own ports an 1 wati'is, ami, as to all per- 
 sons within its jurisdiction, to jnevent any violation of the f jiegolug obligations 
 and duties. 
 
 And the hi<;h contracting parties agree to observe these rules as between them- 
 selves in the future, and to brini; them to the knowledge of otlier maritime powers, 
 and to invite them to accede to them. 
 
 Article XI. 
 
 The hi^'h contracting parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of 
 the tribunal of arbitration and of the board of assessors, should such boaid l)e ap- 
 pointed, as a full, perfect, and linal settlement of all the elahus hereiubefsjre referred 
 to; and further engage that every .such claim, whether the same maj- or may not 
 have been p7-esented to tlie notice of, made, preferi'ed. or laid before tlie tribunal 
 or board, .shall, from and after tlie conclusion of the proceedings of the tribunal or 
 board, be cou.sidered and treated as hnally settled, barred, and henceforth inad- 
 missible. 
 
 Having adduced the evidence of this fact, the TJnited States will next endeavor 
 to indicate to the tribunal of arbitraticm what they deem to have been tlie duties of 
 Great Uritain toward the United States in respect to the several cruiseis which will 
 be named iu this iMper. 
 
 Such is the treaty. 
 
 Then the hi<ih court of nations is duly ai)|iointe(I, as.scmbles at 
 Geneva, and organizes. The high parties litigant appear through 
 agent.s and able counsel and present pleas: both those growing out 
 oi ^\Tongs done to the nation and wrongs done to its citizens. 
 
 By the forms of the treaty just read a]l claims growing out of the 
 acts coiumltted by tlie Alabama and other vessels, which in any man- 
 ner had escaped from Ihitish port.s, -were submitted lor arbitration. 
 
 KESULTS OF ADJUDICATION. 
 
 Knghtnd interposed a dcmnrrer on the ground that by Uie intent 
 and scope of the treaty of Washington tlu; claims for in<liiect dam- 
 age, as here indicated— namely : a, The loss of commercial marine to 
 the American hag; h, The enhanced payments of insurance; c. The 
 prolongation of tlie war and consof^ueiit additional cost — should not 
 lie ent<atained or allowed. 
 
 The (hMuurrer Avas sustained. 
 
 Had tlie I'liited States insi.sted upon their furiher coiisidcralion 
 the arbitration would have been di.ssolved, and a giand stride toward 
 universal peace would not liave been taken. 
 
 But the agent of the rnircd States telegraphetl Secretary I'isli, 
 June 19, 1H72 : 
 
 "We arc of llie opinion lliut thiannoniiccnienl tliis day made liy the tiiliuiiiil iiiu<t 
 be received by the I'niti-d .States as (•eteniiiiiati\ e of ils judgment ii|Miu ilu' i|ues- 
 tiou of jjublir, law involved, mihih wliicli llu' fiiited Slates have insisti'cl upon tak- 
 ing their o]iiiiii)h. 
 
 Tlie tijliunal, you ulll observe, had determined adversely to these 
 indirect claims, and the Knited States had insisted upon t he opinion 
 lieing rciideied. 
 
 Let no member of this House, in the iu-e.s<'nce of such iiicfutabhi 
 testimony, luiteiid that these indirect claims were not rejected by tho 
 tribunal after due. consideration. 
 
 Listen further: On .June 22, 1^7-2, Secretary Fish telegraphs to th<> 
 Cniled States agent, in reply to the diKjtatcii already read : 
 
 ] liave hiiil your telegnuns lii-forc the PreHideiil, wlio directs me to Hny that lii« 
 acceptM the di'claratiiiii of tlie tribunal um itM jud::m<'iit ii)ion a ijueHtiun of putdic 
 law which be felt tbiit tbe iliteK'st^ of Inilb ^ovei iiiiients lei|nil'ed should be de- 
 cided, and for the di'tenilinat ion of wliicli lu! luul felt it iiii|iortHiit to present tho 
 ciaimH refeiTid to for the ]iui-|ioHe of tukin^ the ojiinioii of tin; tnbuiiul. 
 
 You will note the languag'- of Ihisdispatcli. Tlie rresideiit iucepts 
 a dcclaial ion of the tiiliunal's j'ldgment. Ife felt il iinpoitaiit to
 
 6 
 
 present tlie claims referred to. But note furtLicr. The same tele- 
 gram contains this unmistakable language : 
 
 "We had no wish for a pecuniary award, but desired an expression by the tribu- 
 nal as to the liability of a neutral for claims of that character. (Meaning indirect 
 tlaiuis.) 
 
 Tlie President therefore further accepts the opinion and advice of the counsel as 
 set forth above, and authorizes the announcement to the tribunal that he accepts 
 their declaration as determinatiYe of their judgment upon the important question 
 of public law upon which he had felt it his duty to seek the expression of their 
 opinion ; and that, in accordance with such judgment and opinion, fi-om henceforth 
 he regards the claims set forth in the case presented on the part of the United 
 States, for loss in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British 
 flag, the enhanced payment of insurance, and the prolongation of the war, and the 
 addition of a large sum to the cost of the war, and the suppression of the rebellion, 
 as adjudicated and disposed of; and that consequently they will not be further in- 
 sisted upon before the tribunal by the United States, but are henceforth excluded 
 from its consideration by the tribunal in making its award. 
 
 •* FISH. 
 
 After snch a declaration from the Chief magistrate, in terms so ex- 
 idicit that, had ^ve not been familiar with past legislation on this sub- 
 ject, had we not read the report or listened to the argument of mj' 
 honorable colleague, we would have deemed it impossible for any in- 
 telligent man to insist that sifch indirect claims had been waived or 
 withdrawn. Wo will go still further in this direction. What did the 
 tribunal actually do upon the reception of the foregoing dispatch ? 
 You will find in protocol 7— the same being a record of the proceed- 
 ings of the 27th of June, ld72, — that Count Sclopis, on behalf of all 
 the arbitrators, then declared that the said several claims for indirect 
 losses, to wit, (see protocol C:) 
 
 First. The loss in the transfer of commercial marine to the British 
 flag. 
 
 Second. The enhanced payments of insurance. 
 
 Third. The prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large 
 sum to the cost of the war and the suiipression of rebellion — 
 
 Are and from henceforth shall Ijo wholly excluded from the consideration of the 
 tiibunal, and directed the secretary to embody this declaration in the protocol of 
 this day's proceedings. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, before this determination was had, before it was ac- 
 cepted as binding and conclusive by the high contracting parties, 
 Cushing, Evarts, and Waite had exhausted all the resources of their lore, 
 their logic, and their eloquence, far overmatching their competitors, 
 in enforcing the justness of these indirect claims, they were attent- 
 ively heeded by willing, admiring judges, but to no purpose ; the ar- 
 bitrators calmly and firmly rejected the claim. The United States 
 acquiesced in their rejection ; acquiesced in the understanding that 
 our Government was not to recover money for such a purpose. The 
 arbitrators, in arriving at their judgment respecting these claims, 
 were controlled by rules contained in the sixth article of the treaty 
 of Washington and such iirinciples of international law as are not 
 inconsistent therewith. The rules are already quoted. 
 
 IMMORALlTi- OF PAYIXG REJECTED CLADIS. 
 
 Now, we have the liability of the British government in the prem- 
 ises clearly defined; determined acceptably to both governments. 
 The indirect claims are distinctly announced as not being sustaiualdc 
 either by virtue of tlie treaty or of any principle of international law ; 
 and yet we confront a demand that moneys obtained on account of 
 claims which were specifically allowed, which in the high court of 
 nations had been solemnly adjudged as proper, upon which the award 
 itself was predicated, shall be appropriated, now that we have by
 
 fraudulent contrivance and device ol)taiued control of it, to tlie pay- 
 ment of claims admittedly unfounded, and which hj' solemn decree, 
 pursuant to solemn treaty, have been solemnly adjudged illegal and 
 ■without wanaut in international law. What words can be employed 
 in depicting the infamy of such an act ? 
 
 The nation, exultant that such claims had been declared illegal and 
 boasting the advantages to accrue from such an adjudication, through 
 its Congress enacts a law in direct antagonism to the judgment of the 
 tribunal and in violation of every sentiment of honor and justice. 
 ^^^ly, the United States disdainfully stated they desired no pecuniary 
 award on their account. In the correspondence the Secretary t)f State 
 (see volume 11, treaty of Washington, page 476) writes that we should 
 be content with an award that a state is not liable in pecuniary dam- 
 ages for the iudu'cct results of a failiu'e to observe its neiitral obli- 
 gations. 
 
 Any other decision would have been prejudicial to the interests of 
 ourEepublic. A nation whose sphere for the next century will be neu- 
 trality and belligerency wiU bo its exceptional conilition. 
 
 CHAKACTEK 01^ THE MAJOKm' rKOrOSITIOX. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the turpitude of the pending bill amazes one who has 
 any moral sense at all : obtaining money in trust for the payment of 
 claims specifically allowed, and then employing it to satisfy claims 
 specifically disallowed. The sophistry of the report which tends to 
 justify its c(mclusions is thinner than a gossamer wing. It urges or 
 tends to urge that these claims were not adjudicated but abandoned; 
 that in consideration of their abandonment the United States received 
 certain advantages in the negotiation, and that thereby the citizens 
 who paid enhanced premiums of in.surance made a sacrifice which it 
 became the duty of the Government to requite. This reasoning is delu- 
 sive, were it true in itself. It would have no applicability ; for sums 
 of money would be diverted and appropriated contrary to the letter of 
 the trust money intended for other definite purposes. ISut this is the 
 admirable logic of the rejjort ; and if the arbitrators decide in favor 
 of the indirect claims, it will inure to the advantage of a few gentle- 
 men who claim war premiums, but will prejudice us as a neutral na- 
 tion and injure thereby forty millions of our people, if the arbiti'ators 
 decide adversely to the indirect claims. 
 
 Why, it will benefit forty millions of ]ioople, and it will not inter- 
 fere with tlie rights of the gentlemen who claim war prcniinins. We 
 will take care of them, say the .Judiciary Committee; (hey shall be 
 beneficiaries, law or no law. Happy claimants of llie war prcniiums ! 
 Ingrates if you do not jiraisc, tlu; l^ord for such /.e.-iloMs friends! 
 
 Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have dwelt overlongon tlie{|uestion of good 
 faith upon the part of the Government bt-fore stating with jutipor 
 j)recision the particular fjuestions whicli are to be settled in this dis- 
 cussion. The diaraeter of tmr claim against (^reat iJritain, the mode 
 of determining damages due the, Uiiite<l States, the rejection by tlie 
 arbiUafoiH of indirect claims, including cl;iinis for eiiliaii<-ed priv 
 miuniH of insurance, ;ind the ac(|uiescence of the high eontraeliiig 
 parties in such reje-ction, and finally that such rej(>etion w;is a deter- 
 mination for(!ver barring such claims, as the language of the treaty 
 exprcsKCH it, are facts incontestably established. 
 
 TIIK nKI.ATIOX OK THE OOVI.nXMICNT TO Till'. FrKK. 
 
 The trusteeship of the Governnienl is a fact no less susceptible of 
 demonstration, so far as these claims for money awards are concerned.
 
 8 
 
 The money claims of the Government ^ere rejected, as already in- 
 dicated; they came nnder one or the other of the following heads : 
 
 For transfer of commercial marine to the English flag. 
 
 For additional cost in suppressing rebellion. 
 
 For expense in pursuing the cruisers. 
 
 The United States, as already shown, submitted these claims; they 
 were adversely determined by the tribunal, and such decision rejoiced 
 in by oui" Government as one specially favorable to its probable posi- 
 tion of neutrality. The Government no longer had any pecuniary 
 interest in the controversy. 
 
 Such decision was not the result of a bargain, of shrewd calcula- 
 tion — a tacit waiver for an equivocal consideration ; it was the delib- 
 erate judgment of illustrious judges, representing the majesty and 
 dignity of empires, ujiou certain issues i»resented, honestly and fairly, 
 according to the rules provided in article 6 of the treaty of Wash- 
 ington, aud the principles of international law not inconsistent there- 
 with. 
 
 Tables of American claims were presented and accepted as elements 
 of damage sustained by citizens of the United States. Details of 
 evidence were analyzed i n determining which particular cruisers should 
 be inculpated and which exculpated. Extreme i>articularity in the 
 findings is a feature of the award. 
 
 No money award was made to the nation. Any moneys intrusted 
 to the Government Avere intended for the satisfaction of claims due 
 to American citizens, as determined by the tribunal. 
 
 SUMJI.VnV OF POINTS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 
 
 Let the award be produced ; let the decision be exhibited. 
 
 After first declaring certain vessels to be inculpated, holding that 
 Great Britain in such instances failed by omission to fulfill duties 
 prescribed in the first, second, and third of the rules established by 
 article 6 of the treaty of Washington, they decide that the United 
 States are not entitled to indemnity for costs of pursuing the cruisers ; 
 they decide that prospective earnings cannot properly be made the sub- 
 ject of compensation, inasmuch as they depend in their nature upon 
 future and uncertain contingencies ; they decide that all double claims 
 for same losses shall be set aside, and also all claims for gross freights, 
 so far as they exceed "net freiglits ; " that it is preferable, in accord- 
 ance with the spirit and letter of the treaty of Washington, to adopt 
 the form of adjudication of a sum in gross, rather than refer the sub- 
 ject to a board of assessors, pursuant to article 10 of the treaty ; that 
 $15,.50O,00O in gold be jiaid as indemnity by Great Britain to the United 
 States for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the considera- 
 tion of the tribunal, conformably to provisions contained in article 7 
 of the said treaty; that each and every one of the said claims, 
 M'hether the same may or may not have been presented to the notice 
 of, or made, piefeiTe<l, or laid before the tribunal, shall henceforth 
 be considered and treated as finally settled, liarred, and inadmissible. 
 
 The claims in the American case were classified as follows, to wit: 
 
 1. The claims for direct losses growing out of the destruction of 
 vessels and their cargoes by the insurgent cruisers. 
 
 2. The national expenditures in tlie pursuit of those cruisers. 
 
 3. The loss in the transfer of the American commercial marine to 
 the British flag. 
 
 4. The enhanced i^ayments of hisurance. 
 
 5. The prolongation of the war and the addition of a large sum to 
 the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion. 
 
 So far as these various losses and expenditures grew out of the acts
 
 9 
 
 committed by the several cruisers, the Uuited States are entitled to 
 ask coHipensatioii and remuneration therefor before this tribunal. 
 
 The claims for dii'ect losses growing out of the destruction of ves- 
 sels and their cargoes may be further subdivided into : 1. Claims of 
 destruction of vessels and property of the Government «)f the United 
 States; 2. Claims for the destruction of vessels and property under 
 the flag of the United States ; 'S. Claims for damages or injuries to 
 jiersons growing out of the destruction of each class of vessels. 
 
 Is it still an ojien (juestion what claims were allowed by the Geneva 
 tribuual ? 
 
 Verily, that grand court, where met republic and monarchy each 
 the most comiuiinding and enlightened on earth, to have differences 
 adjusted and grievances recomi»ensed under auspices so peculiarly 
 grave, was after all a solemn farce. Kvarts, Cushing, and Waite 
 were joking when th«'y urged indirect claims; they winked at the 
 arhitratoi-s, and intimated they did not mean what they Said ; it was 
 a game of bluli', where certain proofs were exhibited to create an im- 
 pression that certain parties were to be paid for injuries, wheu in re- 
 ality the moneys were intended for anotiicr purixisc. 
 
 How transcendent and exalted such ]>urityl How splendid such 
 diplomacy! It would be olitaining money inidcr false jirctenses. 
 Should an individual in ordinary business resort to such mctliods he 
 would b(; condemned to social outlawry. 
 
 rr.F.A OF GOVERXMF.XT OWXEKSUIl" INVAl.U>. 
 
 Mr. Siicaker, wrongs arc rarely urged unless fortilied by ))lausilile 
 pretext. Not so in this instance. A pretext is set forth, but it is 
 utterly wanting in plausibility. It consists in the allegation that 
 the payment of the money in a gross sum vested the same absolutely 
 in the United States, subjtict to their arbitrary disposition. 
 
 This position is not tenable for an instant. 
 
 First. The act ual proofs, weighed by the arViitrators and accepted as 
 pertinent to the issues, having reference only to tlie losses of private 
 individuals l)y certain cruisers, namely, the Alaljama and her tenders, 
 the Florida and her tenders, the Shenandoah, after leaving Melbourne, 
 give exact sliape and direction to the award. 
 
 Second. The language of the American case, where the exact reasons 
 are stated why an awarded a sum in gross was desired, as follows : 
 
 They panirstly liojn- tli:it tlie- tiiliiiiial will oxoicise the power eoiifeired upon it 
 to iiwald .1 .Hiiiii, in trioss. to Ijf piiid byCircjit Jiritaiii to the United States. Tlio 
 injuries of wliich thi- Uuiteil States eoiiiplaiu were eoiiiniitteil many years sinco. 
 Tlie original wnmjrs to the suti'eiers Ijy theaetsof the insuij^i'iit eiiiisers liave lieeu 
 increased by tlie ih-lay in niakiiiir reparation. It w ill he unjust to impose further 
 delay, and the i-xiiense of jiicsentin;; claims to unoflier trihuiial. if the evidence 
 •which the I'nited States have the honor to )iresi'nt for the consideration of tluwo 
 arbitrators shall ])rove to be sullicient to eiiabh' tlu-m to determine wliat sum, in 
 grosH, would be a. just compensation to the t'niled States for the injuries ami losses 
 of which they coiii]daiii. (Case of the I'nited St.ites, iiart <i.) To sjive delay and 
 expense, and to exhibit penerous conhd<'nee in our ( ;ov<ii iniu-nt, indiK-ed tlie arbi- 
 trateis to respond favorably to the idea. 
 
 Third. 'J'he oflicial statement of the agent of the United States, 
 made to the tribunal, as follows : 
 
 The object of the, treaty is to iniUmnify the United StateH for the losses suflered 
 bv their own citizens, and not to inipoHi! a part of that iiidemnitication ii]ton the 
 United States llieinselvcs. — Volnine 4, pa;;e -l:!, "/ the jmjiers niatimj to thctreat;/ of 
 }yatihiitgluii. 
 
 Fourth. The tribunal, liaving determined as to the vessels incnl- 
 ]pated, examined and seriit iiii/.<'d the, hcIkmIiiIcs and eslimatcHof in- 
 dividual losses presented by the United States, including eljiitns of in- 
 surance comiianies, and, on the inspection thereof, awarded a sum in '
 
 10 
 
 gross which they conceived to be sufiicient to afford a just indemnity 
 to tlie citizens so injured. The evidence relating to this point, mak- 
 ing it unassailable, is found in volume 3, page 579, of papers relat- 
 ing to the treaty of Washington, containing a statement of the agent, 
 with reference to certain tables, which contain a list of the vessels 
 and cargoes destroyed by the inculpated cruisers and the amount 
 of claims in respect of each, including the amounts of insurance there- 
 on, couched in the following language : 
 
 The claims on the part of private individuals, flins oompntod, verilied, and suh- 
 niitted, are supported by all the guaiantces of their good faith and their validity, 
 a.s well for their general amount as for the other facts couceiiiing them which gov- 
 ernments are in tlie habit of requiring in snch cases from their own citizens. It 
 thus ap])ears that these computations show the entire extent of all private losses 
 which tlie result of the adjudications of this tribunal ought to enable the United 
 States to make compeusatiou for. 
 
 Fifth. If the tribunal had not awarded a sum in gross the distribu- 
 tion would have devolved on a board of assessors, who would have 
 heard each particular claimant in such cases as it had been deter- 
 mined by the arbitrators England was guilty, and according to the 
 measure of damage by them prescribed. That the assessors would 
 review and set at naught the decree of the tribunal from whom they 
 borrowed theii" power, to which they would be subordinate, is a sense- 
 less proposition. 
 
 Yet the United States Government were<endowed with the jirecise 
 powers that would have devolved on the assessors ; none beyond. 
 The reasons for imposing such duty on our Goverimient are embodied 
 in the argument of American counsel just quoted from. 
 
 Sixth. The action of the United States under direction of the very 
 officials who conducted the negotiations, the Government binding 
 itself to pay the Secretary of State in trust, and to pay interest ou 
 the amount; the constitution of a court and a partial distribution 
 among sufferers, to the extent of a decree at least — such is the 
 enumeration of facts out of which a trusteeship on the part of our 
 Government arises. Either of these facts would suffice to create a 
 trust. 
 
 THE AnOUMEXT OF FOKCE AND INJUSTICE. 
 
 The only argument that can be preferred in favor of the proposition 
 that the award is the absolute property of the Government is that it 
 is in the Treasury and it has the physical force to appropriate it. Such 
 is the argument in a minoiity report signed by one member of the 
 Judiciary Committee. He logically demands that the sum be covered 
 in the Treasury of the United States and applied to the payment of 
 the national debt. The majority report, idanting itself on the same 
 ground, ignoring all the determinations of the tribunal, all the argu- 
 ments of American counsel, all the declarations of the State Depart- 
 ment, sanctioned by the President and Senate, insists on distributing 
 the money, not among all the people who eqtially suffered by a pro- 
 longation of the war and the mountainous debt ; not to the nation's 
 defenders, by whose valor a flag was saved from pollution, a Kepub- 
 lic from absolute wreck ; not to the foundation of grand charities, 
 where the maimed soldiers, the widows and orphans of those who 
 have fallen might obtain succor, but among the individuals who paid 
 enhanced i^remiums of insurance and those also who suffered from 
 depredations committed by exculpated steamers. Consummate wis- 
 dom ! They say the fund belongs to the Government ! The claims 
 were rejected as illegal, but they must be paid. Such marvelous 
 pffection for a class, without any apparent reason for sympathy or 
 sentiment, is not comprehensible to ordinary' intelligence.
 
 11 
 
 Socrates, by dint of long association, learned to bear with Xanthippe, 
 hut ho never became infatuated with her. In this case the power of 
 association is mightier; the infatuation is complete. 
 
 Gentlemen, if j'ou but knew the attitude the United States would 
 occupy, if after consenting, acquiescing, exulting in a determination 
 involving the rejection of certain claims, it should recognize their 
 validity aud pay them to the exclusion of others the validity of which 
 have been acknowledged and moneys paid with a view of discharg- 
 ing the same, you would scorn this l)ill. 
 
 If Congress should pass this law, it can be justly said that our ofiS- 
 cials do not retlect the average moral sense of the people, for sifth a 
 breach of moral obligation would not lind toleration in any business 
 community. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, equities doubtless there arc belonging to those gentle- 
 men who ]taid premiums for war risks, and still more so to those who 
 suffered direct losses inflicted by exculpated cruisers. I heartily 
 sympathize with them in their losses ; regret that the award was not 
 broad enough to make their cl;iinis valid ; but in view of the circum- 
 stances they cannot be entertained for a moment. Supposing Great 
 Britain made a demand upon the United States Government for a 
 claim based on i)remiiuns paid for war risks by its citizens, or losses 
 snch as I have rcfened to, what would my honorable colleague advise ? 
 Would ho say, O, yes; certainly; our citizens were paid for like 
 claims, and tlierciore wo must respond to your demaiuls .' I think 
 not. He would proudly point to the treaty of Wasliiiigtou and the 
 award made jmrsuaut thereto aud say we bound ourselves to al)iik' 
 forever by their text. AVe hold you to the letter tliereof. 
 
 Is it in accord with good judgment to do that which will destroy 
 all the moral ell'ect of the treaty, which will bring to ignoble end a 
 grand event hitherto supposed to have transpired in the interest of 
 peace and higher civilization ? 
 
 Treaty of Washington, a monument to Christian love, torn down 
 by the bad faith of tiie great American lie)>ublic ; its advantages and 
 results ruthlessly and lastingly lost to us all througli our future years. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the peculiar relation of our Government relatively to 
 this award and its citizens has been jdainly demonstrated. If tlio 
 Government is a trustee, who are the vcnliii que truHln — a question of 
 strict law not dependent on discretion, but nevertheless eiiuities are 
 not absent. It should be judicially determined. From the beginning 
 this has been the error of our Government; instead of directing specific 
 claims to be paid it shouhl have authttrizcd a comi)etent court to de- 
 termine the validity of all claims, subject to the treaty of \\'ashing- 
 ton and the jiroci-edingH of the tribunal at fJeneva, tugether witlithe 
 decision and the award f!iei-e made. We woulil then have escaped 
 an unse«')nly s<ranil>l(; in the lobby. Suitors would have ]>lied courts, 
 where they belong, insteail of Uegislatures, whose business it is to 
 make, not to administiTainl construe the laws. Having given a com- 
 petent court jurisdiction, all else t-ouhl have Ijeen better <ione without 
 tlieaidor liinderance of legislation ; but tlie mistake has been made, 
 the Kiibjfct is thrust upon us. We must not shrink fi'om making a just 
 determination without rt-iVrence to any former action on tht- part of 
 this body, excepting, of course, cases where judgments are already 
 rendertd. 
 
 The- crtiliii iiur IrimtH ,'ire those who suffered directly by the r.-ivages 
 committe<l by incnljcited (trnistsrs, l>eing, first, those wlio owin^d the 
 veHsels and cargoes ilestroyeil and, second, those subrogated to their 
 ri gilts. 
 
 Ill tiiis remarkable discussion of a question as to the execulioii of a
 
 12 
 
 trust defined accurately and specifically, none among those advocat- 
 ing a violation of the trust has disputed the validity of the claims 
 just indicated. The particular claims i)roved resulted from the 
 destruction of ninety-four vessels and their cargoes by the Alabama 
 and Florida and their tenders and the Shenandoah after leaving 
 Melbourne ; the value of tlie vessels, their cargoes and earned freight 
 ■with interest thereon, the arbitrators after careful computation an- 
 nounced to be $jl5,5(H»,000, and made the award accordinglj'. Now, 
 it seems incredible, in the presence of such an adjudication, to sup- 
 pose any gentleman could doubt that the owners of these vessels 
 and cargoes, or those who, having paid the losses, became subrogated 
 to theirrights, are entitled to the award ; that the moneys so paid to 
 the United States are held in trust for such a purpose. 
 
 The former part of the proposition happily escapes the censure of 
 the Judiciary Committee, that the owners were so entitled. Will the 
 legal skill and wisdom of the Judiciary Committee enlighten us as to 
 the distinction of owners and those subrogated to the rights of owners ? 
 
 I suppose it is no needful labor to expound the doctrine of subro- 
 gation and point out its application in this case. Such right on the 
 part of underwriters was insisted upon by American coiinsel before 
 the tribunal, admitted by Sir Roundell Palmer, attorney-general of 
 England, and Chief Justice Cockburn, the English arbitrator. No 
 good, conscientious lawyer will deny it. 
 
 When a merchant makes a contract of insurance with a company 
 he agrees, upon being paid for his loss, to abandon everything con- 
 nected with the thing insured to the insurer ; to assign to him all 
 right of reclamation-^legal parlance, the sjycs rcciqu-raiidi, the hope of 
 recovery — of the thing lost or any damage from the tort feaser who 
 occasioned the wrong. The case reported (8 Johnson's Eeport, page 
 23T, New York) cited by Chief Justice Story with approbation, in 
 the case of Comegys is. Vasse, (1 Peters, page 193, United States,) sets 
 forth the doctrine intelligibly and with an aptness so much in iioint 
 that its full force will be acknowledged. 
 
 One question was whether the jury was at liberty to deduct from 
 the total loss the value of the spes recuperandi. The court held they 
 they were not. Chief Justice Kent said : 
 
 If Fiance should at any future period ajTrce to and actually nial;e com])ensation 
 for the capture and coudeuination in question, the Government of the TJuited States, 
 to whom the consideration would in tlie first instance be payal)le, would become 
 trustee for the paity havint; tlie ecjuitable title to the reimbursement, and this 
 would clearly be to the deieu<lants (the underwriters) if they should pay the 
 amoiuit. 
 
 This case has wonderful analogy to that of the ttnderwriters in 
 the matter of the'Geneva award ; it is an exact precedent; as such 
 I commend it to the favorable consideration of gentlemen who advo- 
 cate the majority report, though they will doubtless give as slight 
 heed to Kent and Story as tliey have done to Moses. With an ardent 
 desire to enlighten my honorable friends, I will cite also for their in- 
 struction the following cases where the right of subrogation as claimed 
 here is amply vindicated : Randall vs. Cochran, 1 Vesey, 98 ; Watson 
 vs. Insurance Company of North America, 1 Birney, 47 ; Rogers vs. 
 Hosack, executor, 18 Wendell, 319 ; Hull <fc Long vs. Railroad Com- 
 panies, 13 Wallace, 3G7; Symonds vs. Union Insurance Company, 4 
 Dallas, 417; Rheulander vs. Insurance Company, 4 Cranch, United 
 States, 29. 
 
 The line of decisions is unbrokc]i. Among the eminent jurists who 
 have spoken in the cases enumerated, are the I'lnrivaled Hardwicke 
 of England, the sturdy Marshall of oiu' own country, maintainiiig that
 
 the insurer occupies toward the insured practically the position of a 
 surety, aud in the words of section d'Mi Story's Equity Jurisprudeuco. 
 "a surety paying the creditor is entitled to a cession of the debt and 
 a siibrojjationor suljstitutiou to all the rights and actions of the cred- 
 itor against the debtor; maintaining further, that the insurance com- 
 pany, upon payment of the loss, succeeds to the rights of the owner," 
 that such company is entitled to all the means of indenniity which 
 the satisfied owner held against the party primarily liable in this 
 cavSe — England is such a partj'. 
 
 The OAvners had a right to recover from England iu this case, but 
 no remedy. The United States furnished such remedy; did this*aud 
 nothing more, save accepting the award in trust for the purposes 
 thereof. 
 
 In Comegys vs. Yasse it was held — 
 
 Tliat an abaudonuient passes to the underwriters all the claims of the assured 
 against a foreign ;;overuuient ou account of illegal capture. 
 
 Such was the clear judgment of our Supreme Court. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, in view of all these decisions, speaking with one voice, 
 concurring in the correctness of the principle of subrngation as ap- 
 plied to cases involved in this discussion, which atllrm also the doc- 
 trine of the civil law, it is not strange that tho.se interested iu secur- 
 ing the payment of enhanced insurance i>remiums aud losses occa- 
 sioned by exculpated crui.sei-s should, in their horror for constitutional 
 tribujials iu whose temi>les alone justice is secure, take refuge iu 
 this House, and by appeals to false sentiment persuade gentlemen 
 ■who.se manifold duties ])revent them from critically examining the 
 legal features of the question to pronounce judgment, in wanton dis- ' 
 regard of moral, legal, and international obligations. 
 
 There is but one conclusion which an honest judgment can reach: 
 that is that the award belongs to the owners of the ninety-four ves- 
 sels and cargoes destroyed, or to tho.se who, having paid the owners, 
 are subrogated to their rights; and if the Government in the distri- 
 bution of the award swerves one hairs-breadth from the faithful 
 fulfillment of its trust it will bt! guilty of an awful crime against 
 morality, and we will learn but too tardily that '•righteousness ex- 
 alteth a nation." 
 
 Mr. Speaker, appeals to ]irejudice in determination of a legal (|ucs- 
 tion where the rights of all the parties are finally adjudicated are un- 
 worthy this House and should be vi.sited w ith pitiless censure, more 
 especially when unfounded. 
 
 To whom would these moneys, if paid to the insurance companies, 
 go? Let us see. 
 
 The amount of insurance claims aggregate the .sum of S4,002,i'7'2, 
 iiultuling interest. Mutual insurance companies claim .vJ,(i:M,'j:54 ; 
 stock companies claim .si, :{()■', (i'Jlt; ten stock couii)anies claiming 
 §(((»«i,(;'Jl have failed by rea.son of great fires in Chicago aud lUtston, 
 
 All tlie mr)neys received by tlie bankrupt companies will relieve 
 tlie necessitieH of tliose who sufi'ered by these severe fires. Will my 
 honorable friends of the .Judiciary Committee urg(^ ('ongres.s by 
 caju'ice and stretch r>f authority to tuiii aw;iy these fnuds from that 
 undeserving class, all for the sake of equity and just ice ? 
 
 Jtut, Mr. ."^pe.iker, n<'arl.\ tlnei-fonrt lis if not quite .ill of those 
 claims are yirefitired by unitn.-il insui'anceconi]ianies ; they, by organ- 
 ization, volnntiiry ;i.ssoci;ition, combine ;ind insure; I henisel ves against 
 loss. Everything they reccrive will be divided among ship-owners 
 and cargo-owners. ])o fliey morally, of|uitably, or logic.illy shift 
 their jiosition as owners when by this voluntary arrangenieiit they
 
 14 
 
 insure themselves ; are they less owners than before ? Is it not a fact 
 that losses and yrolits by reason of a species of partnership are mu- 
 tually borne and losses so divided as to operate without liarshuess 
 upon individuals? 
 
 Do not the gentlemen who made the majority report understand 
 that these moneys, if i)aid to insurance companies, would be returned 
 to the very parties who paid premiums and war risks during the 
 rebellion ; during the period when deiiredations were committed ? 
 
 In New York State the statute provides for such a distribution. 
 
 These are the unconscionable parties whose devoted heads the 
 legislative wrath is to be poured. Such are the people whose rights, 
 more ancient than the Republic, coeval with civilization, are assailed 
 by the majority report of tlie Judiciary Committee. No sophistry can 
 mislead, no misrepresentation betray ; the facts are i^alpable. But 
 infinitely more important thau even these rights is the honor of the 
 Republic. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, it is conceded that the payment of war premiums can 
 be justified only by the plea that the ownership of the award vests 
 absolutely in our Government. They were excluded from all consid- 
 eration hy the tribunal ; no proofs were proftered. Now I beg to in- 
 quire what special ground there is, what reasons there are, what cir- 
 cumstances which sanctify these claims ? 
 
 We are told they maintained the honor and dignity of the flag ; 
 that through their inflexible patriotism our commerce survived the 
 rebellion. Indeed, sir, they are a class of heroes whose history is un- 
 written. Our annals should blaze with the luster of their deeds, for 
 I would gladly yield devotion and homage to valiant men, to patriots. 
 
 What did they do ? Well, they paid excessive rates of insurance, 
 and in doing so they exercised their own volition ; they entered into 
 a contract without any one dreaming that they were fit subjects for 
 the issuance of a writ de Innat'wo inquirendo. If they met with losses 
 they were paid in full by the companies; if not, it is fair to assume 
 these disinterested gentlemen made profit. I doubt whether they 
 ever indulged the spes recuperandi ; the thought, the vulgar, gross 
 thought of indemnity never entered as alloy in their pure iiatriotism. 
 O, np! this was an af ter- thought ; and if the Judiciary Committee 
 are potent enough it will eventuate a lucky thought. When gentle- 
 men are terribly overweighted with sympathy, I would suggest they 
 considered whether the patriotism of these claimants would not have 
 helped the flag quite as much if it had been expended in our armies 
 or navies as in the peaceful pursuits of trade. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the cruisers intlicted an equal loss on every citizen of 
 this Reiniblic ; every soldier was thereby exjiosed to additional rigors 
 and hardships ; additional graves, a^lditional homes made cold and 
 desolate, additional burdens of taxation imposed, attest tlie loss. 
 
 If restraints imposed by the treaty are tp be disregarded, if the 
 Government decides to claim it for itself, then let it be distributed 
 among those whose valor on fields of carnage saved a nation's life : 
 let it be distributed in bounties and pensions, or, Avhat is yet more 
 equitable, let it be covered in the Treasury and divided without 
 liartiality among all the people. Do not idly pretend, gentlemen, that 
 your bill rewards patriotism. 
 
 In all I have said no disrespect is intciided for individuals claim- 
 ing the enhanced premiums ; they rely upon the advice of learned 
 counsel ; my arrows are aimed at the shallow argument which does 
 them gross injustice. This bill enacted into a law, France and Eng- 
 land involved in war ; cruisers fitted out from the harbors of this 
 neutral repulilic ; England knocks at our door; presents claims foj*
 
 15 
 
 war premiiiuis. We say. " Have you forgotten tlie Geneva award given 
 pm-suant to the treaty of Washiugtouf "' England will say, " No ; but 
 while I remember the smart Yankee trick of the American Republic, 
 which, disclaiming all concern about indirect claims, contrived under 
 the guise of a gross sum to collect and distribute them all."' 
 
 What a spectacle then would the glorious Republic jiresent! Con- 
 victed of treachery to treaty obligations, of misapproitriatic* of mon- 
 eys intrusted to it in a iiduciary capacity. The tableau would be 
 indeed interesting if ray honorable friend and colleague should hap- 
 pen just then to be the Secretary of State. 
 
 Perhaps England would say, "We discard the treaty you hafc vio- 
 lated ; we demand damage as though it had never been signed."' 
 
 What a pitiable plight ! Would my honorable friends pride them- 
 selves as wise lawyers and considerate legislators ? The peoi^le would 
 be entirely indili'erent about the cost or the size of their head-stones. 
 
 If the British Parliament should euact a law declaring the treaty 
 of Washington a nullity, we would invoke upon it tlie execrations of 
 mankind ; luid yet we are asked by this bill to do that which in En- 
 gland would be deemed infamous. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, there are among those claiming enhanced prcmiuuts 
 gentlemen who recognize the meaning of a sacred compact and the 
 national obligation to respect the same, who disdain to receive wliat 
 does not belong to them. I refer to Grinell, Minturn «S: Co., of the 
 city I have the honor in part to represent, who frankly write, in a 
 letter dated January d, 1874, as follows : 
 
 After tlio decision of the Geneva l)oard of arbitration, disallovrin^ the claims for 
 ■war premiums, vre supposed that all chance of our receiving auythin;; for those 
 claims was ended, and the idea of ni.akin,^ an allowance to clainiautsof this chaiuc- 
 ter, by means of takiug away from the insurance companies the amounts allowed 
 by the Geneva board in satisfaction of their direct chiims for hisses of ships and 
 cargoes vested in them as assignees, by abandonment or otherwise of the claims of 
 the original parties, is an idea which certainly never would liave occurred to us. 
 
 The letter, a part of Avhich I have .just read, indicates how this 
 question addre.s.ses itself to the commercial miiul, which, in obedience 
 to the dictates of intelligent .self-interest, always recognizes the full 
 force of honesty and integrity in all business transactions. 
 
 In the court of Alabama conunissioners, in the case of West vs. The 
 United States, this straightforward language is employed: 
 
 Does not natir)nal courtesy and good faith reiinirc of us to su]>pose that Crtngrcas 
 in creating tin; court never intended we shonhl distribute the fund other tlian for 
 tlie purj)oses Great JSritain supposed she was jiayingit/ Sni>pose, f<u' instance, 
 Congress had cho.sen to keep half the fund and convert it into the Treasury of llio 
 nation, or had directed tills i-ourt to distiibute it among those wlio had been in.jured 
 by the teiToi' and iilami caused by the insurgent eruisc-rs, or anion;: lIllls(^ who bad 
 Buffered loss by tin- depri'datioiis of leliel eiiiisers other I ban the .Vlabama, Florida, 
 and .Shenaiidoali. In siieh f:ises woiibl not Great liritaiii have ba<l <'ause to complain 
 tluit HJie had been misled, overreached, deceived f Would our (iovurumeul have 
 been uclitig in giMul faith in making such disposition of this fund ,' 
 
 Snch were the pertinent queries that occured to the judicial mind 
 accustomed to weigh ami determine nnder the Kanction id" an oalli! 
 .*^nch are, not the jiertini-nl ((iieries tliat occur to llic mindsof the in.-i- 
 jority of onr .Indieiary ('oniMiittee, which tor their sakes I regret. 
 'l"lir! .Indieiary Commit lee at least respects il.s preileeessor in tlni 
 I'orty-thinl Congress. Where the mighty IJntler led, it fears not to 
 follow. 
 
 The foririrr committee are entitled to the credit of «)rigiiiality, bill, 
 what honor will posterity award to the ]>resent committee f 
 
 .Mr. Speaker, the m.-ijoiity report in predicated ii|)on a false notion 
 that lih' el.iimH in question ar<'againsf the I'niteil .States. When'for.- 
 liieir warrant for this con' lunion / The, United Stat<'s (Jovernmeiit
 
 IG • 
 
 comuiittcil no wrong in tbo premises ; no daaiage occurred by reason 
 of their neglect. The wrongs done for which tlie award was made 
 resnlted from the negligence of P^ngland. All claims were against 
 England ; the claimants, nnalde individually to press their demands 
 against a foreign government, invoked their own Government to act as 
 sponsor and agent. On the 'I^id of September, 1865, the Department of 
 State isAed a circular in the following form: 
 
 Dei-aktmext of State, 
 Wanhinijton, September 22, 1865. 
 Citizens of tlio TTnited States having ilaims anjaiiist foreijcn governments, not 
 founded in eontract, wliicli may liave oiijiinated .since the 8th of February, 1853, 
 will, without any delay which can be avoided, forward to this Department state- 
 ments of the same, under oath, accompanied by the proper i^roof. 
 
 * ^- * * * * * ' 
 
 It is proper that the interposition of this Government with the foreifjii government 
 against which the claim is presented should be requested in express terms, to avoid 
 a possible objection to the Jurisdiction of a future connaission ou the ground of the 
 generality of the claim. Claims of citizens of the United States against this Gov- 
 ernment growing out of the late insurrection are under cognizance of other De- 
 partments, of the Court of Claims, or are a subject for an .appeal to Congress. 
 
 Were the majority of the Judiciary Committee cognizant of this 
 letter ? Did they note the manner in which the claims were des- 
 ignated ; the distinction made between claims against Great Britain 
 and claims against the United States ; the instructions given to such 
 claimants? If so, what an astonishing assumption that the obliga- 
 tion to jjay the claims in question devolved upon our Government as 
 such rather than upon it as the custodian of a fund, charged with a 
 duty in making disposition thereof! 
 
 The treaty, the proceedings before the trilmnal, the records of the 
 Secretary of State, the action of Congress, the arguments in Ameri- 
 can case, the nature of the matter in itself, are so many i)roofs, clear 
 and explicit, to the eftect that the award wao made to satisfy the 
 claims of American citizens against Great Britain, and the United 
 States were intrusted with the task of custody and distribution. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, a commanding duty, one of uuequaled dignity and 
 consequence, awaits our performance. The rights of the respective 
 parties, whose demands for this award depend upon our action, have 
 already been determined by irreversible decree. We have yielded 
 thereto our acquiescence and expressed therewith our satisfaction. 
 We have accepted a trust subject to its conditions. If we fail in ex- 
 ecuting it, so as to escape the whisper of censure, better, a thousand- 
 fold, that the treaty of Washington had never been. 
 
 What is ill-gotten rarely thrives. Arbitration would henceforth be 
 spurned and discarded as a mode of adjusting international difficulties. 
 
 A reimblic would sink into deserved obloquy, the companion of 
 semi-barbarous nationalities, whose distinction consists in wanton 
 disregard of sacred treaties ; a shame on our part infinitely nuiltij>lied 
 because of the crime against humanity involved in provoking a fre- 
 quency of wars. 
 
 Whatever scrupulous honor shall demand or strict propriety sug- 
 gest, let that be done. If rejected claims must be paid, let some other 
 fund be provided. The Geneva award is English money, not ours. 
 To use it as our own would be turpitude. Law, not cai)rice, should 
 be the oracle. 
 
 That our glory may be dimmed by no unworthiuess ; that the treaty 
 of Washington may be a presage of a holier and happier futurity ; 
 th.at it may be hailed by all the peoples of the earth as a rich, sure 
 Xdedge of enduring peace among the nations, let this last act on our 
 part, the execution of the trust, be honestly, piously performed. 
 
 O 
 
 UNIVERSITY of CALIFORMa 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 date stamped below 
 
 
 0EC26flM 
 
 5m-6,'41(3644) 
 
 AA 000 517 558 
 
 PLEAtf DO NOT REMOVE 
 THIS BOOK CARdS 
 
 .^^■LIBRARY^ 
 
 University Research Library 

 
 y