^aXiUwu^rX r? £> • 11). uixAAjJUk- 
 
 3a JT\ . yiyuLuC^OAyU C( 
 
Ciass_£LS? 
 

STATEMENT 
 E . "W. M E T O A. L F , 
 
 Builder of Ship Delphine, 
 
 BEF< 
 
 IT. R. Judiciary- Committee, 
 JANUARY, 1876. 
 
 
 Gentlemen of the Committee: 
 
 Ship Delphine, built by me in Bangor, Maine was de- 
 stroyed by the English steamer Sea King or Shenandoah, 
 on December 29, 1804. 
 
 Her captain, who owned one-eighth of the ship, was. 
 with his wife and child, landed, entirely destitute, in 
 Australia. 
 
 Neither the captain nor myself had any insurance. 
 
 As soon as the captain reached home, I transmitted to 
 the Department of State a relation of the facts, with evi- 
 dence of loss, requesting that measures be taken to secure 
 indemnity therefor from the Government of Great Britain, 
 or that my own Government should indemnify me, in ful- 
 filment of its obligation to protect its citizens from wrong- 
 ful injury. 
 
 Several months later the Shenandoah returned to her 
 home in England, and was surrendered to the British 
 authorities. 
 
 On learning this, I immediately started for England, 
 intending to libel her in the English courts. 
 
 On my way to the Liverpool steamer at New York. I 
 
'O O '"' 
 
 learned that Mr. Adams had taken possession of the 
 Shenandoah, for the benefit of the United States, and that 
 we were thus deprived of our remedy against her. 
 
 Yet, on learning that my Government had officially 
 declared — 
 
 " That a violation of neutrality by the Queen's procla- 
 mation and kindred proceedings of the British govern- 
 ment is regarded as a national wrong and injury to the 
 United States, and that the lowest form of satisfaction for 
 that national injury that the United States could accept 
 would be found in an indemnity, without reservation or 
 compromise, by the British government to those citizens 
 of the United States who had suffered individual injury 
 and damage by the vessels of war unlawfully built, 
 equipped, manned, fitted out, or entertained and pro- 
 tected in the British ports and harbors," (Correspond- 
 ence Concerning Claims vs. Great Britain, vol. 3, p. 588,) — 
 
 T rested content in the hope of ultimate indemnity. 
 
 The history of the correspondence and negotiations be- 
 tween the two Governments is a long one, and doubtless 
 familiar to you all. 
 
 During the progress of these negotiations the President 
 recommended to Congress that— 
 
 " Authority be given for the settlement of these claims 
 by the United States, so that the Government shall have 
 the ownership of the private claims, as well as the re- 
 sponsible control of all the demands against Great 
 Britain." 
 
 (Message of President Grant, December 5, L870.) 
 
 Before Congress had time to act upon this suggestion 
 the Joint High Commission was appointed, which resulted 
 in the Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Tribunal. 
 
 But Secretary Fish and his associate Commissioners in 
 negotiating the Treaty seemed to assume that Congress 
 won id lake some action which would be equivalent to the 
 
President's recommendation to assume and pay these 
 claims, for, although special provision was made for all 
 claims of private citizens other than Alabama claims, the 
 Alabama claims were treated as belonging exclusively to 
 the Government, no mention whatever being made in the 
 Treaty of* any interest of private individuals in them. 
 
 They have ever since been thus treated by this Govern- 
 ment. The Secretary of State instructed the agent and 
 counsel of the United States at Geneva that — 
 
 " The President desires to have the subject discussed as 
 one between the two governments, and he directs me to 
 urge 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 disposition of 
 what may be awarded. :i " If the value. of the prop- 
 
 erty captured or destroyed be recovered name of 
 
 the Government, the distribution of the amount recovered 
 will be made by this Government, without committal as to 
 the mode of distribution.'' 
 
 (Papers relating to Treaty of Washington, vol. 2, p. 11-i.) 
 
 The counsel therefore said to the Tribunal at Geneva : 
 " These claims are all preferred by the United States as a 
 nation against Great Britain as a nation, and are to be so 
 computed and paid." (Papers, <fec, vol. 3, p. 16.) 
 
 To show the reason for and the effect of this course, I 
 quote from "A Short History of Long Negotiations," pp. 
 16, 19, 23, 24, 25, and 26: * 
 
 " This arrangement was of great importance. It was 
 important that the Government should be left free to> dis- 
 tribute whatever amount might be recovered as indemnity 
 to the losers, according to principles of equity and justice, 
 uncontrolled by any question of international obligation. 
 It was more important that the Government should be in 
 a position to labor in all its dealings with the Tribunal to 
 establish tihese principles which would be most advanta- 
 
geous in the future to itself as a nation, and to guard 
 against the danger that by the action of the Tribunal 
 neutral nations should be held to such strict accounta- 
 bility for the acts of their subjects as to make their posi- 
 tion difficult and dangerous. The interests of private 
 claimants were opposed to the broader interests of the na- 
 tion in these respects. It was well for the nation to re- 
 lieve itself from the embarrassment under which it would 
 have been placed had it gone before the Tribunal as agent 
 or attorney for these private claimants, with the obliga- 
 tions which such relations would impose. :!: 
 
 " Secretary Seward had insisted that England owed 
 apology and indemnity for her hasty recognition of the 
 Confederates as belligerents, and relied on this to support 
 the claims of private citizens. He had declined all plans 
 of arbitration which should not consider this recognition 
 as a basis of these claims. England, after persistent re- 
 fusal, had at last consented that it be so considered. But 
 President Grant, for reasons exclusively national, refused 
 to base any claim in the Treaty, or in our case against 
 England, on the fact of her having exercised her right 
 with ill-judged and unfriendly haste. He thus virtually 
 abandoned a part of the claims of citizens of the United 
 States against England. It would have been wrong for 
 him to have done otherwise. It was condoning England's 
 fault for a consideration valuable to the nation, thus 
 transferring England's obligation, so far as concerned cit- 
 izens of the United States, to the Government of the 
 United States. But the nation could afford, and had the 
 right, to act upon the President's recommendation to in- 
 demnify these citizens for England's wrong. It could not 
 afford, had not the right, to sacrifice its own interests or 
 lessen its power for good among the nations." 
 
 The Treaty limited the Tribunal to the consideration 
 of claims " growing out of acts of the several vessels," and 
 required the Tribunal: "First. To determine as to each 
 vessel separately, whether Great Britain has, by any act 
 or omission, failed to fulfill any of the duties set forth in 
 three new rules, or recognized by the principles of inter- 
 
national law riot inconsistent with said rules, and certify 
 such fact as to each of the said vessels," thus determining 
 for the future the liability of neutrals in similar cases, 
 hut conferred the power, by article 7, to award a sum in 
 gross for all the claim* referred to it. 
 
 Great Britain was nominally held derelict as regards 
 the acts of only two vessels, with their tenders, and a 
 part of the acts of a third, but $15,500,000 was awarded 
 as the sum in gross to he paid by Great Britain to the United 
 States for all the claim* referred to the Tribunal. 
 
 " This determining and limiting the liability of neutrals 
 for the future was of vast importance to the United 
 States, of vastly greater importance than the amount 
 awarded, for we had disposed of the only difficulty which 
 could be likely to cause war among ourselves, and settled 
 those questions which might have involved us in war 
 with others. We had reason to expect to be at peace, 
 and to be neutral. It might, however, have been unfor- 
 tunate for individual sufferers if their rights as regards 
 either nation had been determined by these purely na- 
 tional considerations." 
 
 " The United States, (although going before the Tribunal 
 as a belligerent with a case against a neutral,) ' regarding the 
 mere question of the amount of national damages to be 
 awarded as secondary to the higher consideration of the wel- 
 fare and the honor of the United States,' (Papers, &c, vol. 3, 
 p. 2J4,) expressly stated by its counsel to the Tribunal that 
 ' both the sentiments and the interests of the United States, 
 their history and their future, have made, and will make 
 them, the principal advocates and defenders of the rights 
 of neutrals before all the world. It is not for their in- 
 terests to exaggerate the responsibilities of neutrals, but 
 only in the sense of their action in this respect, through- 
 out their whole national lifetime, to restrain the field of 
 arms, and enlarge that of peace.' (Same, p. 223.) 
 
 "Hence, when the arbitrators decided, as regards so 
 many of the vessels, that England had not violated the 
 three rules,, or the laws of nations, thus defining the effect 
 
6 
 
 and value of those rules and laws for all future time, 
 it was a decision in favor of, not against, the United 
 States.". . . . 
 
 This decision, so valuable to the United States as a na- 
 tion, restricted the rules of neutral obligation so much as 
 to exclude about $1/200, 000 of actual loss by destructions 
 (my own ship among the number) for which our Govern- 
 ment would undoubtedly have indemnified its citizens had 
 the settlement been made by Congress, as advised by the 
 President, for " Losses occasioned by all Confederate cruisers 
 outside of Confederate waters would have been paid. The 
 United States had justly demanded of Great Britain full 
 indemnity for the acts of all these cruisers, basing this de- 
 mand upon the Queen's proclamation granting belligerent 
 rights, which was, and which our Government had de- 
 clared to be, ' the cause, and the only cause,' in which 
 ' this evil had its origin/ 
 
 "The Government, alter having so delinitelv and com- 
 pletely endorsed and insisted upon this obligation to its 
 citizens, could not, in a settlement with those citizens, 
 have ignored this obligation." (See Five Minutes in Re- 
 ply, bound herewith.) 
 
 Under the facts as portrayed in the above quotations, I 
 confidently wailed until the subject of the distribution of 
 the Geneva Award was under consideration by Congress 
 and then briefly stated my case to this committee. (See 
 Builder of ship Delphine before H. R. Judiciary Com.) 
 
 They reported a bill which provided indemnity for all 
 of the excluded $1,200,000. It passed the House by a 
 large majority. The Senate, although adopting the same 
 theory, provided for only a part of the sufferers. But. by 
 joint agreement, the balance of the award remains a fund 
 from which Congress may hereafter authorize the pay- 
 ment of other claims thereon. 
 
 Being still left without redress, I again, last session. 
 
1 
 
 stated ray case to the committee, and they again reported 
 in my favor; but for want of time no action was reached. 
 
 I said: 
 
 The Government of the United States was in j:>os- 
 session of money received by virtue of the award at 
 Geneva, according to the Treaty of Washington. 
 
 The money had been paid by Great Britain to the 
 United States "as the indemnity" for injuries inflicted 
 upon this nation, in the person of its citizens, through the 
 fault of England. 
 
 It was awarded " for the satisfaction of all the claims 
 referred to the consideration of the Tribunal." ' 
 
 By the Treaty of Washington, and this award, " all the 
 claims growing out of the acts committed by the several 
 vessels" were, as against England, "fully, perfectly, and 
 finally settled.'' c2) 
 
 My ship Delphihi had, through the fault of England, 
 been destroyed by one of these vessels. Before her de- 
 struction my Government had officially notified the gov- 
 ernment of Great Britain that it would " claim redress for 
 the injuries which might be inflicted " on me, as a citizen 
 of the United States, by such destruction. 
 
 Allow me to quote these notices from the diplomatic 
 correspondence. They all relate to the Shenandoah before 
 Melbourne : 
 
 (ISTo. 1 171.) 
 
 Department of State, Wash., Dec 3, 186-4-. 
 
 Sir : Information has reached this Department to the 
 effect that the British steamer Laurel, reported to have 
 sailed from Liverpool with Semmes and one hundred 
 picked men, met by appointment the English steamer 
 Sea King at the Desertas of the Madeira, and there trans- 
 ferred to the Sea King, Semmes and crew, armament, 
 munitions, and stores . . . . 
 
 Thus it would seem that the notorious commander of 
 the Alabama has again obtained command of a British- 
 
built vessel, which has been supplied by another British 
 vessel with men, arms, and munitions carried out from a 
 British port, and is now at large on the high seas for the 
 purpose of committing depredations upon the commerce 
 of the United States. 
 
 I will thank you to bring the case under the attention of 
 Earl Russell, protesting against any sac//, arrangement as 
 that above indicated, and informing his Lordship that if 
 it is correctly stated this Government considers that Her 
 Majesty's government may be held justly responsible for any 
 losses accruing to citizens of the United States through the 
 depredations of the Sea King. 
 
 1 am, sir, vour obedient servant, 
 
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
 Charles Francis Adams, Esq., vVrc 
 
 (Correspondence < ioncerning ( llaims us. Great Britain, vol. 
 3, p. 330.) 
 
 A* soon an it had knowledge of the destruction of my 
 ship, this Government again officially notified that it 
 " could not avoid entailing upon the government of Great 
 Britain the responsibility for this damage." 
 
 {Wo. 1250.) Department of State, 
 
 Washington, Jan. 27, 1865. 
 
 Sir: Referring to my dispatch of the 3d ultimo, No. 
 1171, in regard to the Sea King or Shenandoah, and to 
 subsequent correspondence on the subject, I now trans- 
 mit a copy of a dispatch from James Monroe,* Esq., the 
 consul of the United States at Rio de Janeiro, containing 
 a statement in relation to the destruction of four United 
 States merchant vessels, with their cargoes. . . .It appears 
 from - the information presented with Mr. Monroe's dis- 
 patch that, with the exception of the name of the com- 
 mander, the representation contained in my No. 117 1 is 
 corroborated. Under these circumstances / have to re- 
 quest you, to inform Her Majesty's government that the 
 United States will claim redress for the injuries and losses 
 
 * Mr. Monroe now represents the 18th District of Ohio in the 
 House of Eepresentatives. 
 
inflicted on their citizens by the depredations of the Sen 
 King or Shenandoah. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 WILLIAM II. SEWARD. 
 Chakles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, ifcc. 
 
 (Correspondence, Claims, &c., vol. 3, p. 335.) 
 
 My Government did claim of Great Britain redress for 
 the injuries inflicted on me. 
 
 {Adams t<> Russell.) 
 
 Legation of the United States, 
 
 London, April 7. 1865. 
 
 My Lord : 1 have the honor to transmit to you a copy 
 of a letter addressed to the Secretary of State at Washing- 
 ton, by the consul of the United Kates at Rio Janeiro, 
 Mr. Monroe, making a report of the depredations com- 
 mitted upon the commerce of the L T nited States by the 
 vessel known in the port of London as the Sea King, but 
 since transformed into the Shenandoah. This same ves- 
 sel has been, since the date of VI r. Monroe's letter, heard, 
 of at Melbourne, from which place further details of sim- 
 ilar outrages have been received. ... 
 
 Were there any reasons to believe that the operations 
 carried or in the ports of Her Majesty's kingdom and its 
 dependencies to maintain and extend this systematic de- 
 predation upon the commerce of a friendly people had 
 been materially relaxed or prevented, I should not be 
 under the painful necessity of announcing to your Lord- 
 ship the fact that my Government cannot avoid entailing 
 upon the government of Great Britain the responsibility 
 ///is damage.. . . . 
 
 So far as I am aware, not a single vessel has been en- 
 gaged in these depredations excepting such as have been 
 furnished from the ports of Her Majesty's kingdom ; un- 
 less, indeed, I might except one or two passenger steamers 
 belonging to persons in New York, forcibly taken posses- 
 sion of in the beginning of the war, feebly armed, and 
 very quickly rendered useless for any aggressive pur- 
 pose. . . . 
 
 I am reluctantly compelled to acknowledge the belief 
 that practically this evil had its origin in the first step 
 
10 
 
 taken, which never can be regarded by my Government 
 in any other light than as precipitate, of acknowledging 
 persons as a belligerent- power on the ocean before they 
 had a single vessel of their own to show floating upon it. 
 The result of that proceeding has been that the power in 
 question, so far as it can be entitled to the name of a 
 belligerent on the ocean at all, was actually created in 
 consequence of the recognition, and not before ; and all 
 that it has subsequently attained of such a position has 
 been through the labor of the subjects of the very country 
 which gave it the shelter of that title in advance. 
 
 CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
 Right Hon. Earl Russkll, &c, Arc, &c. 
 (Same, p. 345.) 
 
 Thus my Government claimed of Great Britain redress 
 for the injuries inflicted on me, (3) and by the Treaty of 
 Washington " fully, perfectly, and finally settled " the 
 claim, m receiving therefor in the Geneva award full satis- 
 faction in money; (4) and satisfaction again, in the value of 
 the Shenandoah herself, when the Government of the 
 United States, for its own benefit, deprived* me of remedy 
 against her. 
 
 .It also received, in other considerations more important 
 than money, vastly more than full compensation. 
 
 Under these facts, I, last year, thought it not unreason- 
 able to ask you to recommend legislation which would in- 
 sure to me indemnity for my loss. (6-) 
 
 In support of my prayer, I urged that the owners of 
 ship Delphine, all of whom I represent, had suffered by 
 the wrongful acts of England, from which we had the 
 right to ask protection of our Government; that our Gov- 
 ernment had condoned the wrong, had deprived us of all 
 remedy against England, and in the condoning had re- 
 ceived abundant compensation for the injury done to us ; 
 that this nation had endorsed our claim ; that we still 
 held that endorsement, for the settlement with the respond- 
 ent by the endorser, where he receives full value for the 
 
11 
 
 claim, cannot cancel, but must strengthen, the obligation 
 of that endorser to the claimant ; that our Government 
 refused to give the Tribunal jurisdiction of the question 
 who should share in the distribution of the award ; (7) that 
 the Tribunal refused to take such jurisdiction ; (S; that the 
 Tribunal was purely international, and could have no 
 jurisdiction over questions of obligation of either govern- 
 ment to its subjects ; that no question of obligation of gov- 
 ernment to its citizens was submitted to or considered by 
 the Tribunal; hence its action could decide no such ques- 
 tion, or impose on this Government any trusteeship or 
 obligation other than to administer its award- with impar- 
 tial justice. 
 
 Your committee listened favorably to my prayer, and 
 framed a bill which, had it been enacted, would have 
 secured justice. 
 
 It provided for the payment — 
 
 " First. For all loss, destruction, or damage by any 
 Confederate cruiser, for whose acts the Government of 
 the United States have made demand upon the govern- 
 ment of Great Britain." 
 
 But certain parties who had suffered no injury by the 
 fault of England, but had been largely benefited by the 
 consequences of that fault, (9) opposed the passage of your 
 bill, and demanded, on purely technical grounds, that 
 they should be included, and sufferers like myself excluded 
 in the distribution of the award. 
 
 Their demand was supported by the influence and abil- 
 ity of the ablest lawyers whose services they could secure. 
 And although the bill, as reported by you, passed the 
 House of Representatives by a large majority, it failed of 
 approval in the Senate. 
 
 A law was enacted which practically provided indem- 
 nity for actual loss caused to insurance companies by 
 Confederate cruisers, whether included or not in the rules 
 
12 
 
 of international obligation determined at Geneva ; but it 
 provided no indemnity for me and many others who, like 
 me, had suffered direct loss through England's fault. 
 
 Even this law was opposed by attorneys of insurance 
 companies, because it did not, besides indemnity, provide 
 for the payment to them of enormous sums, in addition to 
 the enormous profits which the wrongful acts of England 
 had enabled them to secure, and this notwithstanding the 
 fact that, as regards the fault of England, their claims 
 "fall within that elementary rule of damages, so familiar 
 to the legal profession, that only such damages are recov- 
 erable as are the direct, immediate, necessary result of the 
 act." For they need not have paid a single dollar of the 
 loss even though England's wrongful acts had caused the 
 destruction of every American ship afloat. Their having 
 to pay was the result of their own act, by which they, in 
 the hope and realization of great gain, voluntarily assumed 
 the risk. It was in no sense the necessary result of Eng- 
 land's fault, That fault only gave them the opportunity, 
 which they so eagerly embraced, to enlarge their profit- 
 able business. 
 
 The payments authorized by this law appropriate about 
 half of the Geneva Award, the balance remaining " a fund 
 from which Congress may hereafter authorize the pay- 
 ment of other claims thereon." 
 
 In view of these facts and this precedent, I again, hum- 
 bly but earnestly, pray that your committee recommend 
 Congress to authorize the payment of such claims as 
 mine. 
 
 I am aware that we, as citizens, have no legal remedy 
 against our Government. But does not this fact, together 
 with the fact that Congress makes the laws and makes 
 the courts to administer them, changing either at its will^ 
 remove the whole matter from the atmosphere of mere 
 legal technicalities to the higher one of moral obligation ? 
 
13 
 
 and for Congress, emphasize the question, what is right f 
 What ought the law to be ? 
 
 The International Tribunal made, could make, no law 
 for the distribution of its award. Governments only, no 
 citizens, as such, had any part in or wore represented in 
 the Tribunal, or in that portion of the Treaty which cre- 
 ated it. Hence, no citizen was either included or excluded 
 by its decision. 
 
 This nation is morally forbidden to plead as a bar to 
 my claim that it was nominally not included in the Tri- 
 bunal's rules of international obligation, for the exclusion 
 depended on the fact that this Government accepted an 
 apology and three new rules, of value .to itself, as " the 
 means of" so "reducing the measure of the complaint 
 and demand for indemnity before the Tribunal " ""' as to 
 insure such exclusion, u) the exclusion itself being of very 
 great value to this nation 
 
 When this Government abandoned the claims for 
 compensation founded on the Queen's proclamation, (11) it, 
 for its own interests, withdrew from the case, and re- 
 fused to place before the Tribunal as a basis for its claims 
 that great initial wrong of Great Britain, which was " the 
 cause, and the only cause," in which "this evil had its 
 origin," " from which all the grievances seem deducible," 
 without which no Confederate vessel could have existed 
 outside of Confederate waters or Anglo-Confederate vessel 
 destroyed a single ship. 
 
 It was the right and the duty of this Government to do 
 as it did, for it was a great nation acting for itself, in the 
 interest of all its people. 
 
 Had it been, as some claim it was, acting as collecting 
 agent for a few individuals, such conduct would have 
 been so dishonest and dishonorable as to exclude any at- 
 torney from practicing at any bar. 
 
14 
 
 If this abandonment of the sure foundation for a part 
 of the claims, and limiting the evidence to the " acts com- 
 mitted by the several vessels," practically insured the de- 
 cision (ia) which the best interests of this nation required, 
 did it not transfer to this nation the moral obligation to 
 indemnify those who suffered by the wrong? 
 
 As so well ex] tressed in the report of this committee, 
 
 (p. ")- 
 
 " Having for its own interest withdrawn from the Ar- 
 bitrators the ' cause and only cause of the* evil,' thus leav- 
 ing the Tribunal without evidence of that liability of 
 England which the United States had over and over 
 again in every diplomatic form insisted upon, is not the 
 United States estopped from denying reparation to its 
 citizens based upon the rinding of a tribunal, to which, 
 for its own purposes, it would not submit the evidence ? 
 Indeed, by so doing, did not our Government assume 
 this class of losses of its citizens ?" 
 
 Our Government demanded and received a gross sum 
 as " satisfaction of all the claims'' — a sum which is and 
 doubtless was intended by the arbitrators to be ■ sufficient 
 to enable our Government to indemnify from this fund 
 all loyal American citizens who suffered actual loss on 
 the sea through England's fault. 
 
 "What is due to Great Britain in regard to this mat- 
 ter" has been asked by those who claim that we are 
 bound by the award to exclude those who lost directly by 
 the fault of England, in order to add, from the sum 
 awarded as indemnity for that fault, millions of dollars 
 to the millions of profit already secured by insurers in 
 consequence of that fault. 
 
 The question is answered and the view I take fully sus- 
 tained by the crown lawyers of England and by the offi- 
 cial action of that government 
 
15 
 
 British property was in and British underwriters had 
 insured the cargoes of ships which were destroyed by the 
 Alabama. They, claiming that by the Geneva Award 
 American citizens had been indemnified for similar loss, 
 asked indemnity of their government. 
 
 Under the advice of the law officers the British govern- 
 ment rejected their claim. ' ( " , 
 
 During debate in the British Parliament. Mr. Ander- 
 son asked: "If we were obliged to pay for damage sus- 
 tained by the Americans, by reason 6f the conduct of the 
 Alabama, why were we not equally bound to pay for the 
 damage sustained by our own subjects by reason of the 
 acts of that vessel ?" (15) 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, then Prime Minister, said : " It appears 
 to be implied that the government submitted the claims 
 of certain persons not subjects of Her Majesty to arbitra- 
 tion." 
 
 " This is altogether a mistake. No claims of individuals 
 have been submitted to arbitration in relation to the Ala- 
 bama." 
 
 " What was submitted to arbitration, was entirely a ques- 
 tion between the two governments. (l,,) ''' 
 
 Our Government refused in advance to be controlled 
 in its relation to its citizens by the decisions of the Tri- 
 bunal. (17) 
 
 It promised to distribute the amount recovered, (l8) but 
 refused to be committed as to the mode of distribution, 
 and instructed its counsel at Geneva to avoid all such 
 committal, which they did. 
 
 Yet the opinions of the Arbitrators are entitled to the 
 utmost consideration, and should be followed wherever 
 applicable. None of their utterances seem more reason- 
 able or of broader application than " Whereas, in order 
 to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages 
 
16 
 
 which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all 
 double claims for the same losses." 
 
 This, as well as their opinion regarding 'prospective 
 earnings," " gross freights, so far as they exceed net 
 freights," and interest, were deemed applicable, and have 
 been adopted in the law for the partial distribution of the 
 fund which was enacted last session. 
 
 The double claims for the same losses, when insurers 
 claimed pay from the assured and also from the Govern- 
 ment, were set aside. Insurers, however, were not re- 
 quired to refund any part of the double pay for their 
 losses, which they had already received from the assured. 
 And they were allowed to take into their account all their 
 losses occasioned by all the Confederate cruisers, without 
 regard to the decisions of the Tribunal, and whether or 
 not occasioned by a cruiser for whose acts the Govern- 
 ment of the United States had made demand upon the 
 government of Great Britain. 
 
 With these facts and this precedent before you, can any 
 member of your Honorable Committee fail to believe that 
 my prayer is fully within the bounds of justice and rea- 
 son, and endorsed by the demands of national honor ? 
 
 I ask for less in principle than Congress has already 
 provided for insurance companies, for although the 11th 
 section of the law seems to exclude all losses except those 
 caused by the Alabama, Florida, and their tenders, and 
 the Shenandoah, after her departure from Melbourne, the 
 llth. section allows those insurance companies which lost 
 by these vessels, and thus gained a standing in the Court 
 to take into account all their losses by all the Confederate 
 vessels during all the mar. Only five small companies are 
 thus excluded from the Court ; their aggregate loss was 
 but$4cS,163. I see no reason why the law should dis- 
 criminate against them. 
 
11 
 
 To be as liberal in principle to others as Congress has 
 already been to insurance companies would involve the 
 payment of all that is provided in Mr. LuttrelPs bill and 
 about $200,000 more for actual loss caused by the little 
 vessels called the " Musquito fleet " — the Boston, Calhoun, 
 Echo, Jeff. Davis, Winsloiv, Sallie, Savannah, and St. 
 Nicholas. 
 
 Granting my prayer will involve the appropriation of 
 but a very small part of what will remain of the fund, for 
 our loss, with interest, is but little more than $125,000 
 
 It will require less than $1,200,000, exclusive of in- 
 terest, to indemnify for all the losses occasioned by all 
 those cruisers for the acts of which our Government de- 
 manded indemnity of Great Britain, and which are not 
 already provided for by law. 
 
 The events of the war have enriched other claimants 
 and enabled them to employ what they esteemed the 
 ablest legal talent in the world to argue in favor of their 
 claims. These same events compel me to depend upon 
 my own recital of the simple facts, trusting that you will 
 make the arguments in favor of the right. 
 
 To obviate all questions as to facts, I will, with your 
 permission, submit references to authorities, with quota- 
 tions. They substantiate every statement I have made. 
 
 E. W. METCALF. 
 
 Jamiary, 1876. 
 
 Last Congress Hon. Mr. Evarts had the attention of 
 this committee for about three hours. 
 
 I was promised five minutes, in which to reply, but 
 failed to get the time. 
 
18 
 
 Will you allow me to now read what I would then 
 have said ? 
 
 FIYE MINUTES 
 
 In reply to Argument for Insurance Companies, before H. R. 
 Judiciary Committee. 
 
 BY E. W. METCALF. 
 
 January, 1874. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Evarts quoted from the President's message, as 
 follows : 
 
 " I therefore recommend to Congress to authorize the appoint- 
 ment of a Commission, to take proof of the amount and the 
 ownership of these several claims, * * and that authority he 
 given for the settlement of these claims by the United States, 
 so that the Government shall have the ownership of the private 
 claims, as well as the responsible control of all the demands 
 against Great Britain." l 
 
 Then, speaking in behalf of insurance companies, Mr. Evarts 
 claimed that the President thus acknowledged an obligation of 
 the Government to its citizens, the nature or measure of which 
 subsequent negotiations and treaties have not changed, except 
 that it is strengthened by the fact that indemnity in money has 
 been received by the Government for England's fault. 
 
 This suggests the inquiry — Who would have received indem- 
 nity in the settlement, had the course so recommended by the 
 President been adopted '. 
 
 FIBST. 
 
 No distinction could or would have been made between losses 
 caused by the Georgia and the Alabama, or between the Shenan- 
 doah before and after Australia, for no distinction existed in 
 their history, in the wrongfulness of their acts, or in the losses 
 which they occasioned. The distinctions afterward made by 
 the Tribunal related to the questions of inte7*national obliga- 
 
 1. President's Message, Dee. •">. L870. 
 
19 
 
 tion, and are of vast prospective importance and value to this 
 nation, but did not touch the question of obligation to our own 
 citizens. 2 
 
 SECOND. 
 
 Losses occasioned by all Confederate cruisers outside of Con- 
 federate waters would have been paid, for the United States had 
 justly demanded of Great Britain full indemnity for the acts of 
 all these cruisers, basing this demand upon that act of Great 
 Britain which was, and which our Government had declared to 
 be, (1 quote its words,) "precipitate," 3 " unprecedented," 3 " un- 
 justifiable," "the cause, and the only cause," 4 in which "this 
 evil had its origin," 5 "from which all the grievances seem de- 
 ducible," 6 which " actually created,"" 7 gave "birth" 7 to their 
 belligerent power, " by acknowledging persons as a belligerent 
 power on the ocean before they had a single vessel floating 
 upon it." 7 
 
 And even after the nation had, for considerations of national 
 importance only, "abandoned the claims for compensation 
 founded upon the Queen's proclamation," 8 and basing its claims 
 only on the small resultant remainder of the wrong, the United 
 States still insisted that the "obligation to make full eompen- 
 ration for the acts of these vessels was entailed upon Great 
 Britain," 9 and asked the Tribunal at Geneva to make an award 
 in gross, and, in considering its amount, to take into account 
 the losses of individuals in the destruction of their vessels and 
 cargoes by the Sumter™ JVashv/'lle, Retribution™ Talla- 
 hassee™ etc. 
 
 2. Corresjaondence, etc., Claims vs. Great Britain, vol. 5, pp. 577, 586 to 591. 
 
 3. Same, Vol. 3, pp. 533, 534. 
 
 4. Same, Vol. 1, p. 226. 
 
 5. Same, Vol. 1, p. 292. 
 
 6. Same, Vol. 1, p. 242. 
 
 7. Same, Vol. 1, p. 292 ; Vol. 3, p. 533. 
 
 8. Papers relating to Treaty of Washington, Vol. 3, pp. 196, 209. 
 
 9. American Case, p. 163. 
 
 10. Same, p. 132. 
 
 11. Same, p. 133. 
 
 12. Same, p. 156. 
 
 13. Same. pp. 164, 1(15. 
 
20 
 
 The Government, after having so definitely and completely 
 
 endorsed and insisted upon this obligation to its citizens, could 
 not, in a settlement with those citizens, have ignored this obli- 
 gation. 
 
 THIRD. 
 
 Insurance companies would not have received a dollar; for 
 their claims upon the Government for compensation, where 
 property on which they had paid the insurance has been lost or 
 destroyed, " have always been dismissed, on the ground that 
 they were, paid for the risk, and could not ask the Government 
 to hold them harmless.'" 14 
 
 FOURTH. 
 
 The Government, by such settlement, and making full in- 
 demnity for all the loss to individuals, caused by all the Confed- 
 erate cruisers, would have paid out millions of dollars less than 
 it has since received as indemnity from England ; for all the 
 actual unindemnified loss caused by all those cruisers, not in- 
 cluded in the rules of international obligation established by the 
 Geneva Tribunal, does not exceed $1,200,000, while the Tri- 
 bunal justly awarded to the nation indemnity for all the prop- 
 erty destroyed by the cruisers which were included in those 
 rules, deducting nothing; for the indemnities which individuals 
 had received, which amount to about $5,750,000. 
 
 Thus the Government has in its possession money, received 
 as indemnity for England's fault, sufficient to pay its citizens 
 for all their losses directly resulting from that fault, and at 
 least $4,500,000 more, which, if its original obligation had not 
 been changed by subsequent negotiations, the Government is at 
 liberty to disburse to those who suffered less directly from 
 England's wrong, but to which insurance companies can make 
 no claim. 
 
 Have subsequent negotiations changed the obligation ? Does 
 the fact that England has indemnified this nation for a wrong 
 to itself, which was no wro?ig but a benefit to insurers, create 
 
 14. Letter from W. B. Washburn. 
 
21 
 
 an obligation, which did not before exist, to hold insurers (who 
 were paid their own price for the risks they took) harmless from 
 the consequences of their own voluntary act '. Especially, 
 when the Tribunal which awarded the indemnity rejected the 
 claim of insurers, and enunciated a broad principle which mu^t 
 always exclude them, in these words: 
 
 " Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation 
 for the damages vdiich have been sustained, it is necessary to 
 set aside all double claims for the same losses." 1,1 15 
 
 Has the surrender by our Government, J or its own benefit, of 
 the principal foundation for the claims of its citizens, and the 
 settlement, so advantageous to itself — which cancels and bars 
 those claims against England, and transfers the obligations to 
 this] country — relieved the Government from its obligation, 
 which did before exist, to settle with those citizens ? 16 
 
 Although the President and Senate alone -have exclusive 
 jurisdiction over international questions, and the undoubted 
 right to surrender for the public benefit any claim of private 
 citizens as against a foreign power, have they alone any legisla- 
 tive authority I 
 
 Would such surrender cancel the claim, or only transfer the 
 obligation to this nation I 
 
 Could the President and Senate alone make or change any 
 law touching the obligation of the Government to the people \ 
 
 Could they delegate to a Tribunal any power which they 
 themselves did not possess ? 
 
 If not, could the Tribunal at Geneva make any law for the 
 distribution of its award which would be binding upon the 
 Congress or courts of the United States ? 
 
 • Did the Government of the United States, in matters relating 
 to the Treaty of Washington, act for itself, to protect its own 
 dignity, honor, and interests, and establish great principles of 
 international law and precedents, which shall benefit its people 
 and all peoples for all time ; or, did it act simply as an attorney, 
 employed by certain individuals who had, or fancied they had, 
 sundry claims against England? 
 
 15. Award of the Tribunal. 
 
 16. Papers, tic., Vol. '6, p. 223; Vol. 2, p. 216; and "Short History of Long 
 Negotiations." v 
 
22 
 
 It' the first, its success was complete and glorious, one in 
 regard to which every American may rejoice and be proud ; if 
 the second, only partial, and at best of slight importance. 
 
 Which view of the case will Congress take, in its legislation 
 for the distribution of the Geneva Award ? 
 
 If an attorney, it may say to certain of its clients : " Your bill 
 is collected — here is your money ;" and to others : " Your bill 
 was not collected ; there is nothing for you." 
 
 The disappointed client may ask : " Why not ? Was not my 
 loss as real and my claim as just as that of him you paid ?" 
 
 " Oh, yes ! and even more so," attorney replies ; " but, for 
 certain reasons of great importance to myself it was thought 
 not best to have judgment issue for such claims as yours." 
 
 If an attorney, a selfish and dishonest one ! Every honorable 
 impulse says No ! Not an attorney acting for a few individ- 
 uals, but a great nation, acting for itself and for humanity ! 
 
 I have expressed these views as a business man. I feel sure 
 that the business men of the country will endorse them. 
 
 E. W. METCALF. 
 
 Builder of Ship Dflphine. 
 
 NOTES. 
 1. 
 
 " In case the Tribunal find that Great Britain has failed to 
 fulfil any duty or duties 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 all the claims referred to it." {Treaty 
 of Wash., Art. 7.) — " The Tribunal, making use of the autho- 
 rity conferred upon it by Art. 7 of the said treaty, by a majority 
 of four voices to 'one, awards to the United States the sum of 
 $15,500,000 in gold, as the indemnity to be paid by Great Brit- 
 ain to the United States, for the satisfaction of all the claims 
 referred to the consideration of the Tribunal.' 1 '' {Decision and 
 award. Papers relating to Treaty Wash., vol. 4, p. 53.) — 
 " It does not appear in the protocols how the arbitrators arrived 
 at this amount. I am informed that it was readied by mutual 
 
23 
 
 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 determined only by the final division of 
 the sum." — (Mr. Davis* Beport, same vol. ±,p. 8.) 
 
 2. 
 
 "The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result 
 of the proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration * * as 
 a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the claims hereinbefore 
 referred to: and further engage that every such claim * * * 
 shall be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and 
 henceforth inadmissible" — {Treaty of Wash., Art. 11.) "And 
 in accordance with the terms of Art. 11 of the said treaty, the 
 Tribunal declares that 'all the claims referred to in the treaty 
 as submitted to the Tribunal are hereby fully, perfectly and 
 -finally settled? " — {Decision and Award Papers, c&c, Vol. 
 4,^.53.) 
 
 3. 
 
 Claim for my loss was presented to the Tribunal at Geneva, 
 as follows : 
 
 DELPHINE. 
 
 Ship Delphine, of Bangor, Maine ; of 705 35-95 tons burden 
 — William Green Nichols, master. E. W. Metcalf (and others) 
 owners. Sailed October 12, 1864, from London for Akyab ; 
 was captured and destroyed Dec. 29, 1864, in latitude 39 deg. 
 20 min. south, longitude 69 deg. east, by the Shenandoah. 
 
 Total claims tiled, $93,100.00. 
 
 * * (Then follows list of items.) * * 
 
 {Revised List of Claims, p. 234.) 
 
 Gross amount of claims for losses growing out 
 of the destruction of vessels and their car- 
 goes by the insurgent cruisers $20,261,950 60 
 
24 
 
 Less double claims for the same losses, (includ- 
 ing about $5,700,000 by insurance compan- 
 ies,) prospective earnings, and gross freight, 
 
 exceeding net freight, about 12,461,950 60 
 
 Leaving as unindemnified loss, occasioned by 
 
 all the rebel cruisers, say 7,800,000 00 
 
 Insurers paid for war losses about 5,750,000 00 
 
 They received in war premiums not less than. 10,000,000 00 
 (Short Hist. Long Negotiations, p. 32.) 
 
 " The settlement of the less important matter of money in- 
 demnity was such as ought to be satisfactory to the United 
 States, for the amount awarded is sufficient to pay a fair indem- 
 nity for all the destruction of property for which claims were 
 presented to the Tribunal. The United States offered to accept 
 as consideration for the national claims a rule which would have 
 precisely the same effect as the decision excluding them, given 
 by the Tribunal. 
 
 " The value of the property captured or destroyed had been 
 '• recovered in the name of the Government,' and the Govern- 
 ment left ' free to decide as to the rights and claims of in- 
 surers.' " (Same, p. 28.) 
 
 "Whether the sum awarded be adequate, depends, in my 
 opinion, on whether distribution be made among actual losers 
 only and citizens of the United States." (Caleb Cushing in 
 "Treaty Wash.," p. 167.) 
 
 • 5. 
 
 Danger of war was averted; a benefit which cannot be esti- 
 mated in money. 
 
 Advantage for neutrals was gained, which is of great pros- 
 pective value to the United States. 
 
 " The world needed, and it was especially the interest of the 
 United States, to have not only the privileges but the obliga- 
 tions of neutrals well denned and established. 
 
 The English agent and counsel earned the thanks of the 
 United States, not of England, when they urged the fact in re- 
 gard to the Georgia, that — 
 
 "Information about the construction and outfit of the vessel 
 
25 
 
 had for a long time before her departure been in the possession 
 
 of Mr. Adams, hut do communication was made by him to Her 
 Majesty's government on the subject, until six days after the 
 ship had sailed." 
 
 When they urged that — 
 
 'The complaints of the United States might not have been 
 necessary if Mr. Adams had communicated in good time such 
 information as lie possessed. 1 
 
 When the'v urged, in regard to the Shenandoah* that 'It will 
 have been seen also that no representation had been made to 
 Her Majesty's Government respecting her, by Mr. Adams ' — for 
 the decision of the Tribunal, (so valuable for neutrals, and so 
 unfortunate for belligerents,) as regards these vessels, seems to 
 have resulted from the lack of proof that English officials had 
 knowledge of their character before they sailed.' — (Shoi't His- 
 tory of Long Negotiations.) 
 
 No. 18. Mr. Fish to Mr. Sqhenck. 
 
 " * ' * * In this correspondence I have gone as far as 
 prudence would allow in intimating that we neither desired nor 
 expected any pecuniary award, and that we should be content 
 with an award that a State is not liable in pecuniary damages 
 for the indirect results of a failure to observe its neutral obli- 
 gations. It is not the interest of a country situate as are the 
 United States, with their large extent of sea-coast, a small navy, 
 and smaller internal police, to have it established that a nation 
 is liable in damages, &e. * * This Government expects 
 to be in the future as it has been in the past, a neutral much 
 more of the time than a belligerent." * (Papers, 
 
 t£c\, Vol. 2, p. 476.) 
 
 ( Telegram No. 114, Mr. Fish to General Schenck. and Mr. Dan's.) 
 * * * The President directs me to say that he accepts the 
 declaration of the Tribunal, as its judgment upon a question 
 of public law, which he felt that the interests of both Govern- 
 ments required should be decided. * * * This is the at- 
 tainment of an end which this Government had in view in the 
 putting forth of those claims. We had no desire for a pecu- 
 niary reward, but desired an expression by the tribunal as to 
 
26 
 
 the liability of a neutral for claims of that character. (Pa- 
 pers, <&c, Vol. 2, p. 578.) 
 
 "There 'are other assertions of important neutral right, but 
 these are among the most important. They seem all to be 
 available in a possible future to the United States. * * * 
 The United States have had occasion to look practically on 
 both sides of the question, and therefore sometimes to assert 
 neutral duties, while more generally asserting neutral rights 
 and the policy of peace, to such an extent and under such cir- 
 cumstances as to have rendered the United States the champion 
 of neutral rights." * * 
 
 HAMILTON FISH. 
 
 (Palmers, &c, Vol. 4, pp. 548-549.) 
 
 6. 
 Builder of ship Delplmie, before H. R. Jud. Com. 
 
 7. ' 
 
 (Mr. Fish to Mr. (lushing, and same to Mr. Mvarts and Mr. Waite. 
 
 Sir : The President having appointed you one of the counsel 
 of the United States in the matter submitted to the Tribunal of 
 Arbitration, to meet at Geneva, * * it becomes necessary to 
 give you briefly the President's instructions on the subject of 
 your dmies. * * 
 
 The President desires to have the subject discussed as one be- 
 tween the two Governments, and he directs me to urge 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 disposition of what may be awarded. * * It is pos- 
 sible 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 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 Gov- 
 
27 
 
 eminent without committal as to the mode of distribution. It 
 is expected that all such committal be avoided in the arguraenl 
 of counsel. {Papers, dec, Vol. 2, p. 414.1 
 
 In accordance with these instructions, our counsel said to the 
 Tribunal : 
 
 " From these arrangements of the Treaty, it is apparent : * * 
 Second. That these claims are all preferred by the United 
 States as a nation against Great Britain as a nation, and are to 
 be so computed and paid, whether awarded as ' a sum in gross,' 
 under the seventh article of the Treaty, or awarded for assess- 
 ment of amounts, under the tenth article." 
 
 The Tribunal acted without objection upon this statement, 
 (see note 7,) and awarded a sum in gross, in satisfaction of all 
 the claims — as far removed as possible from deciding whom the 
 United States should indemnify from the award. 
 
 9. 
 
 Insurers paid for war losses about $5,750,000. They re- 
 ceived in war premiums at least $10,000,000. 
 
 10. 
 
 " From these arrangements of the Treaty, it is apparent : 
 F'irst. That the High Contracting Parties have found (in the 
 public act of the government of Great Britain, expressing the 
 regret of that government for certain occurrences in the past, 
 and in the joint public act of the two governments, by which 
 they agree to observe, ' as between themselves in future,' the 
 rules established as the law of this arbitration, ' and to bring 
 them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite 
 them to accede to them, 1 ) the means of reducing the measure 
 of the complaint, arid demand for indemnity, insisted upon by 
 the United States and contested by Great Britain before this 
 Tribunal, to all the claims of the United States 'growing but of 
 acts committed by the described vessels.'' (Argument of Coun- 
 sel U. S., Papers, die, vol. 2>,p. 16.) 
 
28 
 
 " It cannot therefore be doubted that, in the beginning of the 
 year 1871, it was well understood by both Governments that 
 the United States maintained that Her Majesty's Government 
 ought, under the law of nations, to make good to them the losses 
 which they had suffered by reason of the acts of all the cruisers 
 typically represented by the Alabama. It is also equally clear 
 that the claims for compensation founded upon the Queen's 
 proclamation were abandoned' by President Grant P — (Argu- 
 ment of U. S. at Geneva, Papers, <&c, vol. 3, p. 196.) 
 
 " While in the treaty, the United States abandoned their 
 claims for the premature recognition of belligerent rights." 
 {Same, p. 203.) 
 
 " According to Sir Stafford Northcote, also, the claims aban- 
 doned by the United States were those 'growing out of the 
 premature recognition of belligerency.' * * * He said that 
 the ' large class of claims upon which the Americans had • 
 hitherto insisted ' were, to be ' shut out,' not because they were 
 expressly excluded by the terms of the treaty, but because, * by 
 confining the reference solely to losses growing out of the acts 
 of particular vessels,' the parties had, in his judgment, made 
 it impossible for the United States to connect the objectionable 
 claims with what the treaty pointed out as the only cause of 
 the injuries which the arbitrators could regard." (Same, p. 204:.) 
 
 " They (English statesmen) felt that they had protected Great 
 Britain by the condition which they had imposed upon the 
 United States, obliging them to trace all their complaints 
 of injury to the acts of the cruisers as the originating cause of 
 the damage." (Same, p. 205.) 
 
 " The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty did not exclude from con- 
 sideration, at least by words of express exclusion, claims of the 
 United States on account of the premature recognition by Great 
 Britain of the insurgents. * * * When the treaty of Wash- 
 ington came under discussion in Parliament, Lord Granville 
 said, and said truly, that in this respect the treaty of Washing- 
 ton had advantages over the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty. The 
 former did not, like the latter, comprehend the belligerency 
 question as a ground of claim. * * 
 
 " It was understood, and it is understood, that the former 
 class of injuries (on account of the Queen's proclamation) are 
 
29 
 
 not. comprised in the treaty, but are in effect excluded by the 
 express language of the treaty, which confines reclamation to 
 acts of the Confederate cruisers." {Same, p. 209.) 
 
 12. 
 
 The Clarendon-Johnson Convention was rejected for national 
 reasons, and to the injury of individual sufferers, (if they were 
 not to be indemnified by our Government,) for by that conven- 
 tion the unwarrantable recognition was to be considered as a 
 basis of claims. Our Minister, Eeverdy Johnson, says of that 
 convention: "This question, (recognition of belligerent rights,) 
 as well as the question whether this [the English] Government 
 had observed their neutral obligations in suffering the Alabama 
 and other vessels to be built and escape from their ports, will 
 be both before the Commission and the umpire. That their 
 decision will be in favor of the United States, I do not doubt. 
 The reasons for this conviction 1 will briefly state: First, The 
 recognition of belligerent rights. The history of the world 
 furnishes no instance of so speedy a recognition in the case of 
 revolutionary efforts to subvert an existing government. At 
 the time it was made, the insurgents had no port within which 
 to build a ship of war, large or small, or the power to get her 
 out if she was built. Nor had they any port to which they 
 could carry any ship that they might capture as prize of war 
 for condemnation in a court of admiralty. * * Upon 
 this ground, then, independent of the question of proper dili- 
 gence, the obligation of Great Britain to meet the losses seems 
 to me to be most apparent. * * • * I am satisfied that if the 
 convention goes into operation, every dollar due on what are 
 known as the Alabama Claims, will be recovered." — {Johnson 
 to SevKcrd, Mess, and Doc. Dept. State, Part 1st, 1868 and 
 1869, p. 411.) 
 
 The Queen's proclamation granting belligerent rights was 
 issued before Mr. Adams, our Minister, had been received by 
 the British government. At his first interview he said: "I 
 must be permitted to express the great regret I had felt on 
 learning the decision to issue the Queen's proclamation, which 
 at once raised the insurgents to the level of a belligerent State. 
 
30 
 
 * * * It considered them a maritime power before they 
 had ever exhibited a single privateer on the ocean." {Cor. 
 Concerning Claims vs. G. B.. vol. ],pp. 183-'4r.) 
 
 Mr. Adams, in an official interview with the British govern- 
 ment, (April 15, 1862,) said: "I beg, furthermore, to advance 
 an opinion that there is not an example in all the history of the 
 United States or of Great Britain — nay, [ might say of any civ- 
 ilized nation of the world — of so precipitate a recognition of 
 belligerent rights to insurgents as this one of which we are 
 treating." (P 21-0.) 
 
 Our Government said, October 5, 1863 : " The successive 
 preparations of hostile naval expeditions in Great Britain are 
 regarded here as fruits of that injudicious proclamation." {P. 
 270.) And January 6, 1861: "On our part, we trace all the 
 evils to an unnecessary and, as we think, an anomalous recog- 
 nition by Her Majesty's government." * * * (P. 273.) 
 
 In a formal note to the British government, dated May 20, 
 1865, our Government maintained — 
 
 First. That the act of recognition * * was precipitate 
 and unprecedented. 
 
 Second. That it had the effect of creating these parties bel- 
 ligerent after the recognition, instead of merely acknowledging 
 an existing fact. * * 
 
 Fourth. That during the whole course of the struggle in 
 America, of nearly four years duration, there has been no ap- 
 pearance of the insurgents as a belligerent on the ocean, ex- 
 cepting in the shape of British vessels, constructed, equipped, 
 supplied, manned, and armed in British ports. * * 
 
 Seventh. That the failure to check this flagrant abuse of 
 neutrality, * * with the aid of the recognition of their bel- 
 ligerent character, has resulted in the burning and destroying 
 on the ocean a large number of merchant vessels and a very 
 large amount of property belonging to the people of the 
 United States. * * 
 
 Ninth. That the injuries thus received are of so grave a na- 
 ture as in reason and justice to constitute a valid claim for rep- 
 aration and indemnification. * * 
 
 The nation that recognized a power as a belligerent before it 
 had built a vessel and became itself the sole source of all the 
 
31 
 
 belligerent character it has ever possessed on the ocean, mnst 
 be regarded as responsible for all the damage that has ensued 
 from that cause.— (P. 304.) 
 
 13. 
 
 " They (the English statesmen) felt that they had protected 
 Great Britain by the condition which they had imposed upon 
 the United States, obliging them to trace all their complaints of 
 injury to the acts of the cruisers, as the originating cause of the 
 damage." — (Amer. Argument at Geneva, Papers, etc., Vol. 3, 
 p. 205.) 
 
 According to Sir Stafford Northcote, " by confining the refer- 
 ence solely to losses growing out of the acts of particular ves- 
 sels," the parties had, in his judgment, made it impossible for 
 the United States to connect the objectionable claims with what 
 the treaty pointed out as the only cause of the injuries which 
 the Arbitrators could regard. — (/Same, 204.) 
 
 14. 
 
 London Times, May 24, 1873, as quotecf in Foreign Relations 
 of the U. S., 1873, part 1, p. 368. 
 
 15. 
 
 London Times, May 27, 1873, as quoted in Foreign Relations 
 of the U. S., part 1, p. 371. 
 
 16. 
 
 Same, page 377. 
 
 17. 
 
 "In th^e discussion of this question, and in the treatment of 
 the entire case, you will be careful not to commit the Govern- 
 ment as to the disposition of what may be awarded? (Instruc- 
 tions to Counsel at Geneva.) 
 
 18. 
 
 "If the value of the property captured or destroyed be .re- 
 
32 
 
 covered in the name of the Government, the distribution of the 
 amount awarded will be made by this Government.". [Same.) 
 
 19. 
 
 See Revised List of Claims. 
 
 20. 
 
 " When the granting to the Confederates the privileges of bel- 
 ligerents resulted in 'the manning and sailing from the Missis- 
 sippi of the Sumter, she received in British ports so warm a 
 welcome and such effective aid as to encourage the fitting out 
 of others from Southern ports, and the building of still others 
 in British ports. In every British port these British-caused or 
 British-built corsairs were sure to receive congratulations for 
 destructions already accomplished, and assistance to enable 
 them still to destroy the merchant vessels belonging to citizens 
 of the United States. Thus, Great Britain was the moral 
 cause of, and became morally responsible for, all the destruc- 
 tions of American vessels. It was but simple justice which 
 afterwards compelled her to pay an amount sufficient to indem- 
 nify the losers for all this destruction. 
 
 The Sumter escaped June 30, 1861. On July 3 she destroyed 
 ship Golden Rocket, of Bangor, Maine. A question of great 
 interest to ship-owners at once arose, Are the insurers bound to 
 pay the owners for this loss \ The owners claimed that the 
 covenants of their policy entitled them to recover. The in- 
 surers refused payment. The owners appealed to the courts. 
 The courts sustained the refusal. This so much alarmed ship- 
 owners that most of them at once paid extra premiums for spe- 
 cial war insurance. Thus, although the amount of property 
 destined by the Sumter was small, the indirect injury occa- 
 sioned by her to owners of American vessels was very great. 
 The whole amount claimed for destructions by her is but $179,- 
 697.67. 
 
 The next vessel which escaped from a Southern port, and was 
 welcomed and assisted in English ports, was the Nashville. 
 She escaped from Charlestown October 26, 1861. On the 19th 
 of November, after having been entertained and supplied at 
 
33 
 
 Bermuda, she burned ship Harvey Birch, and on February 20, 
 1862, schooner Robert Gilfillan. Their value Mas claimed to 
 be about $90,000. All the other destructions, for which claims 
 have been preferred to our Government, were caused by British- 
 built vessels or their tenders, except the trifling amounts of 
 loss by the Boston, Jeff Davis, Retribution, and Sallie, the 
 claims for which in the aggregate amount to but $12,710.53, of 
 which $30,896.53 is claimed by insurance companies. There 
 were six of these British-built cruisers, (the Florida, Alabama, 
 Georgia, Tallahasse or Olustee, Chichamauga, and Shenan- 
 doah^) three of which, the Alabama, Georgia, and Shenan- 
 doah, were never in a port of the so-called Confederate States. 
 
 A very large majority of all the injury done to American 
 commerce by Confederate cruisers was done by the Alabama, 
 the Florida, with her tenders, (the Clarence and Ihcony,) and 
 the Shenandoah, the amounts claimed being for the Alabama* 
 $7,050,293.76; Florida and her tenders, $1,293,869.60 ; She- 
 nandoah, $6,656,838.81, making more than eighteen million 
 dollars. 
 
 The amounts claimed for loss by the Chichamauga, Georgia, 
 and Tallahassee were respectively $183,070.73, $131,160.72, 
 and $836,841.83, or $1,451,073.28 (less than one and a half 
 million) for the three. It should lie remembered that in these 
 several amounts claimed are included the very large amounts 
 which were sb properly set aside by the Geneva Tribunal as 
 " prospective earnings,"" " double claims for the same loss, and 
 gross freight exceeding net freight. 1 ' 
 
 [These figures will be of interest when noticing the results 
 of the Geneva arbitration. The Tribunal established rules of 
 international liability which would cover the acts of the Ala- 
 bama, the Florida and her tenders, and of the Shenandoah 
 after she left Australia, or nearly seventeen millions five hun- 
 dred thousand dollars of gross claims; while the gross claims 
 for the acts of the Shenandoah before she reached Australia, 
 and of all the other cruisers, are less than two million three 
 hundred thousand dollars.] {Short History of Long Negotia- 
 tions.) 
 
>N*-A 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 709 509 9 » 
 
 iffC*