The New York Herald Newspaper, January 25, 1873, Page 9

t 4 of sels tor whieh ' THE GENEVA DIVIDE. The House Judiciary Committee’s Plan for the Distribution of the Award. Hee eS National Indemntty Not Personal Damages. - “Ten Million Dollars for Clatmants---Five aud a Half Million Dollars for Unele Sam. mas Ben Butler's Touching Prayer for Com- missions and Clim Agents. “LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION.” United States District Courts the Claimants’ Resort. ee ogee ee SPECULATIVE LOSSES EXCLUDED. etiam Arbitration Sauce forAhe “Indirect” Goose To Be Served for the Losers’ Ganders. ret THE ALABAMA, FLORIDA AND SHENANDOAH What Will Be Paid For and How to Obtain -It. el enees The subject of the Geneva award is again brought into prominence by the subjoined report and bill to the House of Representatives from the Judiciary Committee. Both have been drawn by General B, F, Butler, who signs the report on behalf of the Committee :— The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was re- ferred House bill No, 3,139, and House bill No. with the accompanying papers, have consid- ered the subject matter therein réferred to them, and respectfully beg leave to report The Committee on the Judiciary having consid- ered all matters relating to the distribution among the several claimants tor losses, known by the generic term of “Alabama claims,” adjusted be- tween the United States and Great Britain by the award lately made &t Geneva, have endeavored 60 | Lo frame legisjation thereon as, within the limits of such award, to attain, with the least possible ex- pense, with the most perfect assurance of imparti- ality and integrity of adininistration, together with the prompt and satisfactory decision of all ques- tions thereto pertaining, to distribute the award equitably among those who seem to have the eae right to share in the moneys secured thereby. The treaty of Washington provides for ¢twomodes ef adjustment of the claims in controversy be- tween the United States and Great Britain: First, ander article ten, that “in case the tribunal at Geneva finds that Great Britain has fated to fulfil any duty, or duties, as aforesaid, and does not award a sum in gross, the high contracting parties agree that a board 0: sessors shall be appointed to ascertain and determine what claims are valid, and what amount, or amounts, shall be paid by Great Britain to the United States on account of the liability arising from such failure; as to each vessel according to the extent of such liability.” Then provision is made as to when the claims shall | be presented, as to how the assessors shall act, and within what time they shall decide, and the sums awarded under this artic’ ere made paya- ble in Washington within twelve months after the felivery of each report. Second, by article 7, itis declared that, “in case the tribunal finds that Great Britain has failed to fulfil any duty, or duties, as aforesaid,” i. ¢ as a geutral nation, “it may, if it think proper, pro- peed to award a sum in gross, to be paid by Great Britain to the United States, for all the claims re- ferred to it; and in such case the gross sum so Awarded shall be paid in coin by the government of Great Britain to the government of the United States, at Washington, within twelve months after the date of the award.” WAS TUE AWARD FOR A GROSS SUM AND NOT FOR SPRCIFIC CLAIMS. The first question that presents Itself, therefore, is, whether ce specific claims entered into, and be- came part of the award made by the tribanalat Ge- neva? And, as a coroilary to this, what, ifany effect, ought wo be given, iu framing legislation, to dis- tribute that award according to the findings of the arbitrators. it will be observed that im case a separate find- ing was made against each vessel—i.¢., Confede- fate cruiser--then a board ef assessors were to ascertain each individual claim as against the de; redations of that vessel, for which t Britain was liable, with the right of each individual clatm- ant to be heard beiore the assessers. A funding, therefore, by the board of assessors, of the liability of Great Britain in aby particular claim would have been controlling in favor of that individual claim, against the United States, In the distribu- tion of the award. It is further to pe taken into consideration that the United States put before the tribuual at Geneva very large claims tor damages, including the pre- sumed losses of all its citizens, in their Various re- lations in commerce, as Well as the supposed dam- ages and losses assuived to have happened to the government itself. But it is well known, as matter Of history, that those claims 0; consequential dam- sidered hy the tribunal at Geneva at all, presented by the United States for depredations of the three vessels—to wit, the innasiny the Florida and her tenders and the Shenandoah February 18, 1865; 80 that by no possibility of calculation of claims that were allowed or calculation of interest | thereon could the tribunal have reached the sum of $15,500,000 a8 the ainount of mdemnity to be paid to the United States Jor losses by vidual citizens or corporations, ‘ This couclusion, iH it needed fortification, is strengthened by the fact that the arbitratien chose to make an award of @ gross, sum as sueh indem- niiy, instead of sending the individual claimants to the Board of Assessors, provided for in the tenth | articie of the treaty, to ‘ascertain and determine what claims are vaild and what amount or ainounts shall be paid by Great sritain to the United States on account of the ability arg Om eOe fuilure, as to each vessel, according to the extent of such liability, as decided by the arbitrators,” The treaty also provides in express terms that, in order to remove and adjust all complaints and ciaims on the part of the nited | Sintes, “the high contracting prriies agree that of said claims,” @, claims all on the part of the United States “growing ont of act committed by the aforesaid vessels, aud gen- ally Koown as the Alabama claims, shall be ree ferred to the tribunal of arbitration.” It will be thus seen that it was claims on the part of the United Staies that were submitted by the treaty to the tribunal and sed upon by the arbi- trators, and hot c.aims of individuals; ior if the arbitrators had intended individual clans, as such, should be passed upon by any tribunal under the treaty, they would have referred the same to the Board of Assessors, where the individual could be heard as to the validity and amount of his claims, This view is further strengthened by the fact that in the Johnson-Clarendon treaty the claims jmonerically known as the Aiabama claims,” now under consideration, were descrivec “as-claims on the part of the citizens of the United States upon the government of Her Britanme Majesty.” But the treaty of Washington assumes that no indi- viduai couid have apy claim, because of the de- struction of his property by a hostile power in war or its aily, so that they are described “as the claims of the United States.” Indeed, in the first protocol the claim made by our Commissioners was “that the United States had sustained @ great wrong.”’ Ms THE DUTY OF THE UNITED STATES TO CITIZENS SUFFERING SPECIAL LOSSES IN THE WAR. From these and other consfderations which Might be presented your committee have come to the conclusion that the amount awarded at Geneva is the money of the United States, to be disposed of at its pleasure, subject to no trust, and especially to no legal riguts, In any mdividual or corporation by whom a legal or equitable claiin can be set up or maintatned to any part of the sum awarded, as against the United States. MERITORIOUS LOSSES, IN ORDER OF TDEIR PRECE- DENCE, TO BE PAID IN FULIq With these views ef the obligations of the gov- ernment to its citizens your committee have wv tempted, by the provisions of the bill herewith r ported to the House, to present such legislation as will equitably and fully do all that can be justly claimed of the government in this bevalf. Your committee can have no doubt that the per- sons who ought first to be considered in tlus distri- bution were those who had sutlered losses while carrying on the commerce of the country in the usual and ordinary mode, and have received no in- demnity whatever, therefor; they, therefore, have provided first for the uninsured vessels aud cargoes, Second, for the losses of the officers and crews and for wages actually earned, and their property on Which no insurance was received, and tie loss in excess of insurance received, and the damages and losses which happened to them respectively, because of being leit either at sea or sent to a foreign port by the capturing cruiser. Third, that the United States itself should re- ceive indemnity for its own vessels actually cap- tured and destroyed by cruisers, This, however, is not a large matter, as there were but two or more of them, and these comparatively of small value. WAR PREMIUMS TO BE PAID IN SECOND CLASS. Next, your committee assume that the merchants who, in tee general course of business, had their Vessels and cargoes afloat at the time of the sailing of these cruisers to begin their work oi destruction and who were obliged, for that cause, to pay largely increased war piheae or war risks to insure their property, which payments must, in any event, be a total loss te them, of right be classed as among the most meritorious, and hence they are put, then, next in rank, with proper provisions to direct an equitable distribution of such war pre- miuns among those who actually paid them, It has been and may again be objected to this class of claims, that, however meritorious, through what may well be deemed an inadvertence ef our government, claims for a part of these war pre- miums were presented by our agent (reve d that class of claims made by the United States before the tribunal for indirect losses or, and known consequential damages. We have said that it was an inadvertence to have s@ presented the war remiums, Certainly no more direct loss was inflicted upon the citizen by the depreda-- tiens ef the rebel cruisers than the increased war premium. Although these were a widespread loss, reaching mauy citizens, this tact alone could give them no element of indirection, The loss of each increased premiam paid reached the purse‘of the citizen as directly as if the com- mander of the Alabama had captured him and taken a like amount from his pocket. . Your committee is further led to believe that the presentation of a part of these premiums among the indirect losses was an inadvertence, be- cause they find in some cases war-premiums were presented to the tribunal, by the same agents of the government, as direct losses, as, for example, the Oneida, destroyed by the Florida on the 24th of April, 1863, and the Rockingham, de- stroyeé by the Florida on the 23d of April, 1864, But if your committee are right in the conclusion to which they have come, a8 above stated, that the fund obtained from the award at Geneva is the property of the United States, to be disposed of at its Will, to do justice to its citizens, irrespective of any supposed decigion of the arbitration upon in- vidual claims, whether called direct or indirect losses, then we can have no doubt that those who paid war premiums upon their property were most directly injured by the depredations of the rebel cruisers, and that every consideration of equity and justice requires their indemnitication as amoung the meritorious classes who should be first cared for in its distribution, Assuming, for reasons which will be obvious Upon an examination of some tables appended to ages were ruled out and not taken into considera- | tion by the arbitrators, after an amendment in fact to the treaty. It is quite evident that no classes of claims of in- @ividaais, as such, were made the ground of the award by the Geneva tribunal, because it appears that the award, £15,000,000, was the very sum which Mr. 1864, warned the House of Commons that the United States were suffering from the depreda; tions of the rebel cruisers in the following words :— “It is estimated that the loss sustained by the cap- ture and burning of American vessels is about fif- teen millions ot doilars, é, €., £3,000,000, Now, the $500,000 added might well ve for sup- posed expenses of the government in eilecting the settlement, or for interest at a moderate rate after the adjustment. The tribunal might well suppose they would be justified at least in finding a n due as damages against Great Britain, which one of her leading statesmen had asserted in the most positive manner in Parliament, without contradic- tion, to have been in 1864 done by these cruisers to the commerce o! the United States. However this may be, it conclusively appears to your committec that the award never could have been made up out of any calculation or adjustment of the tudividual aims presented io the tribumal at Geneva to the unt of fifteen mi!lions for the destruction by three vessels Only, and one of tnem, the Shenan- doah, only after February 18, 1865, for which Great Britain was held liable. Tye United States present, as direct damages, clalins in gross to the tribunal at Geneva, fer the truction of vess ro i of ireight, in- surance, reinsurance, prospective profits, personal losses, effects, damages, and damages jor detention of ships not destroyed by th Al __ eee Clarence and Tucony, tenders to Fiorida..... Shenandoah (aiter Fe Total of all possible claims for three Ae CTUISOTB, . 0 eee cece ceeceseees ++ $17,811,195 By 4 careful examination of these claims’ in de- tall, in the case presented by the United States, it | ‘will be tound that they include (never having been | audited or examined by any over or agent of the United States) estimated prospective protits, gross freights, lusurance and reimsurance of the same property, moneys to be made by prospective catch Jes by the whalers, and outfits which had en, iD fact, Mo which, ata just evth mate, when a we claims made by the owners and ott. Cobden, on the 12th of May, | ves- | | THE CLAIMS OF INSU &s Tollows: In Vessels destroyed by the Alabama. In vessels destroyed by the Florida. . In vessels destroyed by the Shenandoah. Tota) amount of elarms which are not for® property actually destroyed or actaal injuries i esas $10,312,526 Fai le The gus claimed by the United Stat ng, le Vesseis, the gross amount above $17,811,195, were disulioweu in express terms bY the tribunal at Geneva, as follows :— The tribunal were | “unanimously of tie opinion that there is no | ground for awardiug to the United states any wm, by way of indemnity, un this head,” & ¢. rospective earnings.’ pid we tribunal further declared as to “double claims’— « ¢. claims py stiy for the same Joss by insurers and that, In case of such double claims, to arrive at equitable compensation for the damage that had been sustained it is pasary tO sel aside all double claims for the same losses,” “Phe tribunal also set aside “all claims for gross freights,”’ so far as they exceeded net Ireights, Keforining, then, the above gross ciaim of the | United States of $17,811,195 by deducting the $10,312,526, which amount wiil appear upon ey amination to have been ruled out and set aside by | princip the arbitrators, a8 above set forth, it will leave | that the underwriter 1 ,408, 669 on atizeny as the amount of individual claims the Ugjied States, Wujck were con. | So in the case of Williamson vs, Purd | the | Rity to the extent of the loss sustained.’ this report, to which we call special attention, as we believe that it will be conclusively shown that the award of £15,500,000 will much more than cover the actual losses or damages sustained by these four classes of our citizens, whose position as claimants, we believe, to be most meritorious, M- ciuding the government, your committee have pro- vided ior their payment iu full as soon as such losses, under the principles and in the manner provided for in the bill, can be determined. NO SPECULATIVE DAMAGES TO RE PAID, | Toestabiish the justand true amount of these classes and, indeed, of all classes of lesses, your ! committed have established the principle that no prospective profits, whether oi earnings by specu- lations in trade or by catch, in the case oi whalers | and fishermen, and no unearned freights or pass- age money shall be considered, In coming to this conclusion your committee are fortified In their beitef of its correctness by finding that this has been the universal rule in estimating damages for marine torts, whether by collision or otherwise, b; all courts, both im this country and England, We agree that the maxim of law in such cases 18, undoubtedly, restituio in integram to the party injured, but always with the limitation that is foss is to be made good at the time, without reference to future or speculative profits or dam- The rule is laid down by Mr. Justice Story in ‘s reported cases, ‘The limitation is stated in case of the Lively, 1 Gallison’s Reperts, p. 315, as follows: “Upon the whole, I am well satisfied that the profits apon 2 supposition of a prosperous termin: tion of the voyage ought pot in any case to comsti- | tute an item for damages.” (13 How- ard’s Keports, 101), the Supreme Court laid down eneral rule regulating damages in cases of collision 1s “to allow the injured party an indem- This was a case ot collision. The same rule in England wes enunciated in the case of the Amelia (5 New Keperts, p. 164), by Dr. Lushington, inthe High Court of Admiralty. He | asserts it to be “not only the doctrine of a Court of | Admiralty, but of the Courts oi commen law.” The same rule was afirmed early by our own | Supreme Court in the case of the Amable Nancy (3 Wheaton R., p, 346.) | ‘The probabie or possible benefits of a voyage as vet in fieré can never afford @ safe rule by whicti to estimaie damages in cases of marine trespass. There Is so much neeriainty im the rule itself, so many contingencies which may vary or extinguish its appiicat nltics in sustaining its Le nurt cannot believe it proper to | Again, the same rule was affirmed by the Su- preme Court in the Amistad da Rues (5 Wheatou, p. B86.) In cases of marine torts the Court has deliberately settled that the probable profits of a Voyage are not a ilt | amount for the ascertainment of damag: | These rules are general, and are adopted in the text books. (Parsons on Sinpping, Vol. i, p. 683; Sedgwick on Damages, p. 70.) Your committee therefore see no considerations | arising out of the matters. tn hand to unsetuie tie rules of law which have been established in all | civilized countries for all time upon the question oF What shail be an indemnification in damages in cases of the capture, collision or other wrong- doing at se If we needed any reasoning to sus- tain us in Chis opinion we have only to advert to the fact that the vessel “captured to- day, jor which the probable profits tobe therealter earned or acquired in the voyage are assessed as damages of may have all be cut of by storm or fii same day, i! the vesse had not heen ERS AND ht SIDERED, The fifth class of clainms provided for in the bill are those arising out of insurance and re-insurance of the property destroyed by the cruisers. The provision of the bill in regard to these, in short, is lhis: that msurance companies, if they have made, upon tue whole, @ logs in the business of tusurance so lar as war-premiums are concerned, are weil | entitted to be indemnified for that loss, to be asc tained upon striking a balance of profit and lose arising eut of the business of marine insurance, lor which th eceived war premiums. The very 1pon which insurance proceeds at ali ts selves & premium which, | Lpon the whole, will equal his Josses and afford raptured, URERS CON- ‘NEW. YORK HERALD, one—for doing the business and undertaking the Tisk. It is certain that he would not do the busi- ness at all unless be supposed that his premiums would cover all pessible Josses ani 1eave a balance in his tavor. It is upon that basis that all his cal- culations are made, It has been long since decided that the value of the property or the ownership of property in- sured, in absence of fraud, is not an element of con- sideration in determining who is entitled to the in- surance money in case of loss. He who has vaid the premium shall receive the insurance. Anybody may insure another body's property if he chooses bn: paying the requisite premium; yet, trom motives of pubiie polley to prevent wager policies, the law requires that the assured should fave an interest in the property, But that interest need not be at allcommensurate with the whole value of the prop- erty, a8 when the equity man insures his equity or redemption to the amount of the whole property, although the larger portion of its value may have been vonveyed by him in pledge or mortgage. ‘This principle has been nowhere better illustrated and argued than in the opinion of the late Chief Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts, in the case of King vs. State Insurance Company, 7 Cush (Mass), R., p. 1. In view of these considerations your committee have assumed that the underwriters have received already an indemnification for the losses sustained by them trom the aggregate of premiums they have received, and that it would be inequitable to take any partof the fund which should be devoted to pay the unremunerated losses of the citizens of the government to add to the profits of the insurance companies the amount which they have received already from their premiums. ‘To an inquiry why your committee have decided not to place tle claiins of the underwriters, even where their business shows that there has been upon the whole a Joss in fact, among the oiler classes of losses which are to be paid in full at all events from the fund, we say that the claims for losses by owners of vessels and cargoes, and oificers and crews whose property and persous were at sea when these criisers came out, or who must allow their vessels to rot at the wharves unless they ventured forth in spite of the enemy on the water, and thus show their enterprise in A Sl deg 4 the commerce of the country in the face of the enemy, and aiding the nation in the war, ought to be considered more meritorious than those of in- surers who entered inte the business of making a profit out of those very depredations by calculating the risks and adding Very large war premiums to their rates for insurance, and thus, rightiully enough, but in perfect safety vo themselves and to their profits, made money out of the war. ‘The un- derwriters who took war risks went into the war as a business and should assume ali the conse- quences of that busmess, which your committee rmly believe were not unproiitable to them a8 a rule; and if, in any case, their ventures turned out upon the whole to be a loss, your committee are willing they should be indemnified out of this fund, but in subordination to the more meritorious classes who were specially injured by the ravages of war, in the prosecrtion of which it was necessary to the prosperity and power of the nation that they should carry on. CLAIM OF INSURERS THAT THEY HAVE RIGHTS DIF- FERENT FROM OTHER LOSSES REFUTED. Your committee are not unaware that the in- surers make claim upon the fund arising out oi tiie award as something whica belongs co them, and contend that thetr claim to it is to be considered equal, certainly, if not superior to any other, 'Phis claim or, in some sort, lien on the award, so far as your committee are advised, is put upon two grounds :—First, that payments by the insurers for losses were presented to the tribunal at Geneva ed upon by the arbitrators, and form part ot the ‘ard itseif, and therefore should be dis- tributed to tnem, the insurers, if not to the exciu- sion of all, yet to the exclusion of some of the other classes of claims which we have provided for. Secondly, that M4 the principles of mer- cantile law’ an underwriter who pays a total loss is suorogated to the rights of the assured in all the property which may be saved or recovered upon which the insurance attached, ‘These considerations gravely put forward, inyolv- ing consequences and amounts the most consider- able, supported by the arguments and statements of learned counsel who have been employed by the insurers to give opinions thereon and furnish copies for the newspapers, and to be distributed to members of Congress for the purpose of preoccupy- ing their minds and Ree their judgments as legislators, are entitled to 1ull examination, as the decision upon the question will be of the highest moment both to the insurers and the other sutter- ers by these losses who have not yet appeared be- tore Congress by counsel to represent thelr claims, Upon the best consideration which we can bring to the first ground of special claim by the insurers your committee believe it to be untenable in this, that while tt is true that tne claims ofthe insur- ance companies for losses paid were presented by this government to the tribunal at Geneva asa part of our claims against Great Britain, and, as we are ready to admit, rightly enough presented, yet, as the case before the arbitration shows that the claims of the assured were also presented at the same time for the same property destroyed, the allowance of both claims Would have been, in the language of the award of the arbitrators, an allowance of ‘double claims.”? Both were therefore rejected. So that in this distribution of the award it seems to your committee impossible to say that any one of the claims of the insurers were allowed in the award. Indeed, if the conclusion be correct to which your‘committee came, as at first herein set forth, that this was a gross or lump award of ail claims for the great wrong done the United States by Great Britain, it is impossible for any man to suy on given claim was allowed, however merito- rious that claim might have been. . We adhere, therefore, to our opinion, hereinbe- fore expressed, that the money received from this award is the property of the United States alone, free from all claims or liens by any persons whom- soever, and that it is a moral duty only of the United States to distribute it equitably among its citizens. Your committee have already shown why it seems inequitable to pay back to the insurers, already indemnified by their war premiums for the amount insured, all that they have paid, to the ex- clusion of th insured who have suffered loss or those losing La the value of the insurance re- ceived, who hie received no indemnity whatever, and who n& voluntarily in many cases, if in any, put msel¥es in the positions which brought them witH@h the reach of fhe enemy. ittee are ni capt ni} unmindtul of the fact that Were whalers and vessels 8, Who had been out for months, some Wf years, before the Alabama and her consoris were loose upon them. Can it be possible that thes® brave mariners, without in- surance in many cases, are not to be ‘indemnified from the fund while the insurance companies, who voluntarily assumed the risks for moneys paid whica they believed to be, and which the principie of insurance was, suficient to indemnify them ior | all their losses, shall be paid in full? The second ground upon which the Insurers put their prior claim to this fund is, as before stated, that in each case where the underwriter paid the loss he is subrogated by principles of mercantile luw, well understood in this country and in Europe, to all the rights of the assured in the insured prop- erty. This may true, may, is true, as @ principle of law, but is it more than this’ If the assured has received full pay from the insurers for his property a5 a total loss, then any portion of the property thus paid for by the in- demuity, if ever afterward found or saved, be- comes the property of the insurer. In some cases, indeed, the underwriters show that they took assignments of all claims of the assured upon the government of the United States or upon the government of Great Britain for the destruction of property betore they paid the losses, Without stopping to inquire by what right an un- derwriter demands such assignment before he pays the losses for which he* has received a pre- mium, which obliges him to pay it, your committee are quite willing to admit the fact of such assign- ment and their full legal force and effect, We may be permitted to remark, however, as showing the strong conflict of idéas of the assured and the underwriter as to thew rights, thatin v many cases the destroyed vessel and cargo, pecially oi those captured by the Shenandoah, the owners of vessels When presenting their claims for their loss, distinctly protest against any diminu- tion ofthe indemnipy for their losses because of any money received as insurance, This claim, so distinctively put forth by the assured, must be upon. the ground plainiy that they believe their war premiums have more than indemnified the under- writers for payments made by them, It seems to your committee that there isa fun- damental error in this claimed effect of the subro- 1 gation and assignment of the rights of the assured to the undérwriters upon bis claim to the award. Adinitting it to be true, whether by the principle of subrogation in Jaw, as claimed, or by actual as- sixument im due form, the underwriters are subro- gated to the rights o/ the assured and have a legal or equitable title to all lis rights and claims, What thea? Whac claim in equity or law had the as- sured himself agaiust Great Britain’ By what principle of law was such a claim assigna- ile? ‘The assured had certainly no property whioh was paid for by ihe insurance, No individual, by the principles Of international law as we under- stand them, ld have a claim against a foreign governmont for damages don war by such hos- Ule gov me or its ally. All those claims bh | trom the earliest time, all publicists, been | as swallowed up in the greater claim and greater | Wrong done to the nation by war, and no private ; cilizen has ever been allowed to interfere ; a the settlement of a war by treaty between his government and its enemy by reason of his claim jor josses sustained, All govern ts bave always si clams jor injuries done to their citize king treaties of indemnit ace as they chose, pr bugs done the citizens, or one of the grounds of ( the Johnson-Ciarendon Treaty, in rol the claims, Was that it adjust ‘aims of citizeus against Great brivam, of national claims of the United States against that government. This was corre in the Treaty of Washington, as we have before seen, Wherein only the national claims e adjusted between the nations, and in- dividual claims were pat forward by the two gov- ernments as a partol tie national claims only 80 hur as they chose soto do. And it is sae to say that there cannot be found im the Washington ‘Treaty, orm the award of the arbitrators ander it, any Warrant for the idea that gives any hts touny Individual for any claim whatever as against the United States or as against Great Britain, In deeg, the words of the finding of the arbitrators 8 would seein to be conclusive npon this he tribunal, making use of the authority conerred upon it by ele or the said treaty, by & majority of four yoices to one, awards to the United States | uyedes p lair prodt—and generally @ large, 4 SWUM of $15,000,000 jn guid as the Indemmity te be SATURDAY, JANUARY 25, 1873—rxKurLB SHEET. id by Great Britain to the United States for sat- taction of all claims referred to the conalderation of the trivunal, conformably to the provisions con- tained in article 7 of the aforesaid treaty.’? To avoid misapprehension, however, let us ad- vert to the big ad claims of the subjects of either overnment for certain injuries suifered on land uring the war, which are now being adjudicated by a mixed commission sitting at Washington, What, then, is the deduction, if we admit that the underwriters ae subrogated to the full- est extent rights of the assured? What rights hi the assured ? None whatever, He has lost his vessel; he has therefore nothing to lay c! a splinter of it above water. If there were, that splinter might well pass to the underwriter, elther vy subrogation or Senenieny, as the case may be. 0 a w, then, can the underwriter acquire rights. by ny process from the assured, who have them not? ‘rhe underwriter has paid his money because he received it, before he paid it, in war premium from the hands of those wbom he insured. Does he claim that in fixing that wer Demian he speculated upon the ible chance that hereafter he should be indemnitied by his government, so as to receive his losses paid, as well as his premiums, or by indemnification from the enemy? If so, can he show that he reduced his war premiums in the ratio of his expectations? The history of his in- surance during the war shows that war premiums suifered no diminution trom this or any other cause; for we sce in many instances that the im- surers divided among other stockholders forty and fifty per cent per annum dividends as profits, Your committee do not feel called upon to make any provision to increase those dividends, but only as they have done, to give indemnification where losses on the whole have actually been incurred, For the reasens above stated, and for others, which will readily suggest themselves upon an ex- ‘amination of the subject, your committee believe that they have done full justice to the insurers in inserting provisions in this bill which shall relieve them in any degree from the losses occurring in & business which they voluntarily undertook by risks to which jah? exposed themselves for sums of money which they deemed, and which was, in fact sutticient to enable them to make a profit upon these risks, It will be observed that in case of any loss by an unfortunate iusurance cempany upon their whole business, from which,they are to be Indemnified upon the principles established in this bill, your committee have provided that such indemaifica- tion shall be equitably distributed among those who were interested in the insurance companies atthe time these losses were made, and whose property was paid out to make them good, and not among those who have bought into the companies aiterward, Perhaps it will be found—and, in the judgment of your committee, it is much more than possible— that the amount awarded will pay all classes of claims in full when they shall have jus' equitably, by sworn evidence in open court, upon fail trial, been brongit down to just and true amounts, If so, the distinction which your com- mittee have deemed it necessary to make between the first four and the iast three classes ef claim- | ants will become unimpertant; and the last three classes are only subordinated to the first four, ex more cautela, in tear lest the award may not be sufiicient to pay all, RULES BY WHICH AMOUNTS OF LOSSES ARE TO BE DETERMINED. Your committee, having now determined the classes of claims which should be paid, have, in tie second section, indicated as rules for the guidance of the tribunal which shall settle the amount of the claims, which, mdeed, we believe to be such only as are now settled in like cases, as Jaw in the Courts of Admiralty and common law, as to what ought te be the amount of damages allowed, and in support of which, in the discussion hereinbefore had of the several Classes of claims, we have cited the authoritative decisions of the Courts, both 1n-this country and in England, In short, in other phrase, we have inhibited the allowance of claims for all prospective profits, speculative er consequential damages, unearned freights or hoped-for trading speculations, and we believe this restriction will cominend itself to the -zood sense of Congress and the people. Lest any portion of the evidence which has been athered by the claimants and filed in the State Department tending to show these losses might not be able to be reproduced, from lapse of tune and. accident,. your committee bave provided that all the depositions, affidavits, protests and ether papers which have been so filed in the several cases may be read in evidence, valeat quantum, before the tribunal which shall fix the amount of these claims. We have also provided for means by which that tribunal may entorce, for the purposes of justice, the peodnonce. of ali documents, books and papers in the possession or under the control of the claimants or of any other party, by apply- ing to these cases the rule established by the Ju- ‘diciary act of 1789, enlarging it a little, however, by requiring only a general description of the pa- pers, books and documents to be produced, instead o: that more particular and special description whiclp would be required in equity causes for the production of like documents, SHALL THE CLAIMS BE SENT TO A COMMISSION OR TO A COUKT. : ‘The next great problem which presents itself to your committee is what tribunal is best fitted to determine ‘the just rights of the parties among themselves, the rights of the government, and the suse and true amount of losses suifered? It has een recommended from sources entitled to the very highest respect that Congress should provide for a commission of three men, who, sittin Washington, shall decide all these causes, There are many objections which suggest themselves to such commission for this purpose, some of which your committee desire tu lay before the House as controlling in their judgment, tending to show why acommission is net the most convenient to the claimants, the most economical, or most certain to do justice, or even the most speedy mode of adjust- ing the matters under consideration. THE OBJECTIONS TO A COMMISSION STATED. Of course such eommission would sit at Washing- ton, Now, substantially, all the claims are from the States of Pennsylvania, New York, and of New England, and the parties, witnesses and counsel, if the usual counsel of the parties are employed, would be obliged to leave their homes and places of business, and bring’ their books and papers to Washington to have their cases heard and deter- mined. A hearing at Washington also would, in fact, shut out and render utterly illusory all hope ofindemnity to the largest class of individual citizens, although the smallest class, in amount of their claims, who have suffered trom capture by the rebel cruisers. We refer to the officers and crews whose claims for loss of wages and deten- tion and individual losses will range trom one or two hundred to one or two thousand doilars. No man in Boston, or even in New York, would be considered sane who should advise any one of this Jarge and most meritorious and needy class of claimants, whose injuries should call for. a few hundred doilars tae te einploy coun- sel, and, a Jortiori, a claim agent, and be at the expense of taking testimony or atm ts § his witnesses to Washington, or even going himself, for the purpose of promoting a claim before a commission, with a)jl the imecident delays of hearing, for such an amount, A COMMISSION WOULD GIVE FOUR MILLION DOLLARS CORRUPTION FUND TO OLAIM AGENTS. The effect of a commission sitting in Washington would be to throw the whole business of conduct- ing the vlaims before it in behalt of private parties into the hands of the resident claim agents and attorneys here, with, perhaps, the exception ef some of the larger classes o1 claims in New York, Philadelphia and other cities, Now, it is well known to your committee that the manner ot se- curing payment of iees and expenses in the prose- cation of claims in Washington is almost univer- sally by contingent fees; that is, the claim agent or attorney contracts with the injured party tor ohe-hali, one-third ana seldom jess than one- quarter of his claim, payable to the agent upon the contingency of its successful prosecution, There have been various acts of Congress levelled just this practice, because of the dread oi the abuses liable to arise out of it. All the enactments, however, have thus tar been found ineffectual to Stop the practice, As will be seen, many of these claims are tor very large amounts, and if the mer- chants or owners of vessels could have them tried at their homes, conducted by their professional ad- visers and counsel who do their regular and usual legal business, the costs of conducting them need be, and, probably, would be, not other and different from the cost of conducting ordinary suits at law. Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the aver percentage of contingent fees which would be demanded by the claim agents and attor- neys at the capital would be no higher than tweaty- five per cent, We would then have the enormous sum of one-fourth of the award, or a little less than four millions of dollars, passing from the losers into the | hands of claim agents, In view of this state of facts, could a more incon- venient tribanal to the suitors or @ more expen- sive ene than a commission be devised? But these are not all the objections or dangers to be appre- hended. Tne government, whose interest in this award, because not only of its own claims, but ofits right to What may remain alter all the just claims have been paid, which, with faithful adininistra- tion of justice in this behalf, your committee be- lieve will be a very considerable sum, exceeding millions in amount, must of necessity be repre- sented before that commission by one, and cer- tainly by not more than two, agents or attorneys, ‘The Contingent tees of the claim agents, amount. ing to nearly four millions, would be, as we sec, wholly dependent on success; and, being a much greater reward, as @ rule, if obtained, than any labor that can possibly be expended in the prose- cution of the cases ought reasonably to demand, would readily be divided by the claim agents with anybody, either commissioner or government at- torney, Who woulé insure success, ' Th ct, then, of a hearing before a commission at Washington would be to place a corruption fund of a number of millions with which to tempt both Commissioners and counsel, The govern- ment may, and it is to be hoped wiil, select men ior such employment who are above and beyond temptation; but your committee, mindful of the necessity of the prayer, so early taught them, “Lead us not into temptation,” are unwilling to recommend legislation which shall expose human nature to so great atrial. Further, such a commission does not sit tn pub- he, in fact, whatever it may doin form, Its acts are known to but few, They are, from the nature of things, to be re-examined by none. Camuis- sloners ever have been and ever will be, where they dea! with large amoun' jubject to suspicion, because perhaps ot the very ability to temptation to which we have ailaded. e manner in which and the judgments by which the indemnification to these meritorious classes of our fellow citizens who have made these great losses is to be ascer- tained and adjudged should be as far above sus- picion as the lot of bamanity will admit. Homan Bagecity bas Rot, 60 far, vy any civilized country, devised a method of determining controversies tween party and party, or claims against a gov- ernment even, which has in 60 great @ d commanded the respect of the ple, or to whose acts and Mudgment greater deierence has been to justice in the prepence of a learnea watchtul , Testrained by an enlightened THE CLAIMS OUGHT TO ETTLED BY THE COURTS LIKE OTHER RIGHTS OF PROPERTY. ; than the ordinary courts of the country, sit- and, mn, to which all their acts are open and Therefore, your committee, alter much cunsider- ation, have prowided that these claims shall be Re. perm ruined, 08 other right of roperty inary tribunals of the Un: cH and they have been led to this, because, as a rule, the Cireult Courts of the United States are pre- saedieverity learned, impartial, intelligent, labo- a men as Jus who are seeking to and do their full duty to their country, their office and ane. fellow citizens, and who have in no degree rfeited the respect due from either to themselves. There can be no danger of any effect upon the Courts, because of the magnitude of these cases, or the magnitude of the and rewards coming from their prosecution, of which we have before spoken, because they will be so scattered and di- vided as one or other of the several Judges may hold the term at which the causes are to be heard; and assuming, a8 we do, that none but the Ordinary fees ef proiessional W pO} will neither be opportunity for nor temptation to have anything improper or irregular done in de- ciding these cases more than other causes between party and party. Your committee feel that they need not further sketch, even for the information and intelligence of the House, the advantages of having these claims determined by such Courts. Many of them will, perhaps, involve conflicting titles to leg 378 erty among the claimants themselves. ‘hese ona to be determined by the ordinary tribunals, not by any commission. Our laws now provide that where the rights of a citizen to property of the amount of $ ‘are in controversy ie has & right to have, before even that small sum is taken away from him, the yadgment of the Supreme Court of the land upon questions of law and sometimes of fact therein involved, How much greater, thén, his right of appeal, where, as in many of these cases, the claims amount to hundreds of thou- sands, has the claimant a right to have the Supreme Court pass upon al uestions of law that may arise in the conflict of titles to the property itself, or even upon the very few questions of law that can arise in determining the amount due, under the principles laid down in this bill by the Supreme Court of the last resort, HOW QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE DISPOSED OF. While, therefore, we think we are loliowing the constitutional and certainly the ordinary method of determining the rights of parties in sending these claims to be adjudicated by the Courts, we have provided, as will be seen in the bill, by re- quiring that only questions of law so grave that the Judge himseif determining them doubts the propriety of his own judgment, or if two judges are sitting together and are onones in opinion upon any question, then only shall it go to the Supreme Court; and we have also provided that the fact of one or more claimants being so unfortunate as*to have the adjustment of. their losses settled without an ap- peal to the Supreme Court shall not hinder the payment of adjudications of the Court of the first instance where no such Sercne of law arise. One objection to sendiug these causes to the Courts has been because of the delays of adjudica- tion, and as a corollary to that the fact that our Circuit Courts of the United States in large cities are in some instances now quite overburdened with business, To meet that the vill provides that where the books, vouchers or accounts are te be examined—and that will be the case in many of the causes—the Court may refer the case to an auditor, appointed by itself, to make that examination, which, in practice, will result in bringing only a single questien to be decided by the Court, and not often that. So that we believe the businesq of the Courts will really be not in any very considerable degree increased by this class of causes. And as in every case the government must of necessity be a party when a@ cause shall reach the Supreme Court, it may be advanced and given precedence on the docket upon the motion of the Attorney General, and the fact that a large class of causes may be de- perident upon the principle involved in the de- cision will always be a controlling reason with the Court why that motion should be granted almost as of course. . . The remaining sections of the bill only provide for the erdinary methods of bringing the cases be- fore the Courts, with proper notice to the parties, im a manner which your committee believe will be most effective to perc ous the business before the Courts and speeding the causes, which will explain themselves upon reading the bill. - THE AWARD TO BE PUT aT INIEREST WHILE THE RIGHTS QF TAP PARTIES ARE BEING DETERMINED, AND AFTER ALL CLAIMS PAID REMAINDER TO GO TO THR UNITED STATES, By the last section of the bill your committee provide that the award, when paid to the Secretary of State, shall be by him transmitted to the Secre- tary of the onsen and invested in the five per cent. bonds of the United States, to remain en in- terest, and only so much of them suld as may be needed irom time to time to pay the adjudications against the fund when filed with the Secretary of the Treasury. By this means, the fund being al- ways on interest, the claimants will not be un- necessarily injured by delays gine adjudication of claims in the last three cla: with which they may be associated, but will receive, in fact, interest on their claims, if the amount of the award shall fall shert of ing the entire amount claimed. The section further provides that the remainder, alter providing for the remuneration of all claims under the principles of the bill, shall be covered junto the Treasury of the United States, where by right it belongs. And your committee desire here te reiterate their belief that if the provisions of this bill are fully and fairly carried out, so as to give only true and just amount of losses te the claimants, the remainder coming to the United Staies will be a very consid- erable if not @ very large sum. bed . Your committee beg leave, in conclusion, to re- mark that in preparing this bill they have’ had a single purpose enly, to do that which seems to them is demanded by equity and justice in reliev- the various classes of claimants according to at aipens to be their merit, is the most speedy, sure and just determination of all the questions in- volved, 80 that the losses by the unfriendly acts of Great Britain, as the ally of the enemies ot our country during the war, may, as soon as possible, receive that just indemnity tor nie suffered which has already been too long delayed. All of which is respectiully submitted. BENJAMIN F. BUTLER, For the committee. Appendix. BIL to ted for the just and equitable distribu- tion of the award made to the United States by the Commissioners at Geneva under the Treaty of Washington. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repre- sentatives of the United States ef America in Con- gress eee ag tng out of the money paid by the government of Great Britain in satisiaction of the award of the ‘bitration at Geneva, under the Treaty of Washington, indemnification to the United States and citizens thereof and corpora- tions established therein shall be established and paid from the Treasury, in the manner hereinaftor provided, to the following classes of claimants, in the manner following :— First—To all actual owners of Bropersy at the time of its destruction, whether ships or cargoes, outfit, advanced or other wages paid to qfficers an seamen, or freights actually earned, lost by capture or destruction by the cruisers for whose acts said ar- pitrators have found the government of Great Britain liable, shali be paid an actual indemnity where they were not insured thereupon or the in- surance was net received, Second—In ail such vessels, to the officers and crews, all the wages which had been actually earned by them up to the time of their capture, —_loss, or. destruction by such cruisers, together with the individual prop- erty of each, respectively, captured and lost or destroyed in the vessel se captured who have not received the insurance thereupon; and to such of- ficers and crews, or to any person gn board either of said vessels, an indemnity for damages actually stained from such capture or detention, and the amount expended in returning to their homes or the place where they engaged in business or took employment, respectively, not eee any pros- Beare profits or wages not earned at the time of capture, ird—Where the Nai officers or seamen of such vessels so captured and lost or destroyed were insured {for less and received insurance in less ameunt than the actual value of the vessel or other property avove described, captarea and lest or de- stroyed, a further indemnity shall be made for their loss beyond the sum se insured and received. en tte the ay ae Si Ry vessels the property 0! ne go! or which were under charter the United States, and for the destruction oF lots of which the United States, by the terms of the charter party, was liable, which were capturea, and destroyed and lost by sald cruisers, to, ther with the property of the United States on ard, and the same indemnity to the oficers and crews of said vessels, respectively, as hereinbetore pro- vided in case of capture of private vessels, Fith—All persons who had paid a premium for war risks on vessels after the sailing of either of said cruisers, to the amount of such extra or war remiums paid by them, whether they suffered loss if capture of their vessels or otherwise: Pro- vided, That in case of such premiums paid or se- cured to mutnal ineurance companies, the indem- nity shall be the difference between the premiums id or secuted and the returned security or pre- mium therefer. To all insurers, being citizens or corpora- tions of the United States, respectively, having in- sured or retnsured property sv destroyed, who stall show, by an exhibit of their books of account and business, that the war premiums actually received a them after the sailing of either of said cruisers did not equal in amount the losses paid by them, because of property thereafterward captured and Jost or destroyed by either or all of said cruisers, provided the amount paid to any such insurance company for losses so sustained shall be appor- tioned by the company among the members thereof at the time of the losses — py them, respectively in proportion to the stock or interest then owned by each member thereo!. ‘SKC. 2.—That in rtaining the losses so suffered no account shall oe n of prospective profits or of ireight not then earned or of profits of charter parties not then fulfilled, save that where any ves* sel carrying freight or passengers or bound on & | Suning voyage nad partly perlormed be voyage vo} nage aes to capture only shail be , acting the portion of (apie pe and outfit expended. In ascertaining the amount of such losses the me- depositions and papers, in the several cases respectively, fied in tne ent, Bay be read in evidence: Pro- aMidavit shall be read when the op- Pp: mm vided, that no osiny ty shall take, by commission, upon in- tern aries the testimeny of the reo giving the affidavit or shall produce the witness. And in. the hearing of the cause. any party claiming shail. roduce all books, papers, letters and documents. that may be called for by @ geaarel description thereof by any opposing Party, or satisfactorily account for Cd joss Or bette fia hen or sniffer such judgment as is prescribed in section fifteen ot an act entitled “An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States,” approved September 29,1789, And on the hearing of the cause any com- petent evidence may be produced by either ares r ither viva voce or by deposition taken upon Fogatories; and for this purpose depesitions may be taken i} either party de bene, or the Court may” admit aMidavits where it is satisfactorily shown that the witness cannot he produced or his ex- amination by interrogatories and cross-examina- tion cannot be had. SEo, 3,—That any citizen or cor indemnity under the provisions of this act may ap- ply by petitien, of which he shall file twenty-five copies in the clerk’s oflice for the use of the Mar- shal and Court, in print, certified by himself or bis counsel to the Circuit or Territorial Court of the United States having jurisdiction at the place - wherein he resides, or last resided, or in which the fore ig situated from which the vessel, because of ‘he capture or the destruction of which the claim 1s eg last before sailed, potting. forth summarily that he is a citizen of the United States, or, if @ corporation, that the same was incorporated within. the United States, the true title to the property, and the nature thereof, and whether he was a full owner, or claims to have held the same in trust or in pledge, or by mort; thereon, the true and just value thereof at the time of from whom he purchased the same, the amount of insurance, if any, and where and when su) an when’ or where, as nearly as he knows or believes, and What cruiser, the ry same was destroyed or injured, and that, to the peascuer’s knowledge or belief, no other person: as any other claim to or interest in the property than that which is set forth in said petition; or, in case of claims for war premiums paid, the amount, and to what insurers and upon what vessel the same were paid; or, in case of claims for personal. damages or losses by reason of capture, a just and true acceunt of the same and the money paid by him on account thereof, and to whom and when paid; which petition shall be verified by oath or- affirmation of the party, ifa‘citizen, or the agent of the corporation duly Suthorised MANIng. the same. Upon the filing of said petition the Court shall order a notice, returnable at a time and place certain within ninety days, containing the petition and an order commanding all persons to appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of the petition should not be granted at the time and place at which the notice is returnable, and directing the Marshal for the proper district to cause the same to be published three times a week tor four weeks, the last publi- cation to be at least thirty days before the return day of the notice, in two of the principal news- papers published in the place where the Court is olden, and to serve a duly certified copy thereot on or before the first day of the first publication. upon the District Attorney of the United States for the district where the Court is holden, and also a. copy upon the Attorney General of the United States and upon the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, the last two services to be made - by mail, and the receipt thereof duly acknow!- edged by the officer receiving the same. Ang the Marshal shall make a return of his doings under said order, together with a certificate under oath, of the publishers of the newspapers where said netice was published, that the same ™ has been pubiished in the full editions of their papers for the time prescribed, which certificate shall state the dates of the first and last publica- tion, Within twenty days after the return day of such notice any person claiming an adverse or joint or other interest in the subject matter thereot. may appear and-file his petition setting forth in a summary manner his claim of title, interest tm or ownership to said property, in the same manner as the original petitioner is herein required to do, and may be admitted as a pai in the cause begun. by saia peciics, and may be heard by himself or counsei in the trial of the same. And it shail be- the duty of the District Attorney of the United) States to appear within sald twenty days, and make answer to said petition, summarily denying the allegations, and setting up, suen other p CF, 3 or the of oWectiol ay Ha Ade- tormey Ho val ak deanate any counsel to appear for the United States in that ne If, at the réquest of the District Attorney. e answer shall also be made, within twenty days after the ng thereof by the Distriet Attorney, to any other [ae jon witch may be filed in the causes as herein- fore provided; and in case no such answer shall be filed as before provided, or upon filing the an- wee above required, the Gourt shall hear the par- tics as soon thereaiter as may be convenient: and if any question of fact in dispute between the par- ties arises, or amy of them, the Court may frame an igsue, and submit the qnestion to a jury, in the: same manner as in ordinary tri t law, at the re- quest of either party, or the thereof may: hear and determine the same, a8 parties m: elect. If, upon the hearing of the se, ANY « tion of law shall arise, by way Of exception oi otherwise, 80 doubtful that the Circuit Judge, if sitting alone, shall be of opjnion that it ought to be heard and determined byy the Supreme Court of the United States; or if the judges sitting at the _ trial shall be opposed in opinion thercon, then, and not otherwise. such question of law may be certified to the Supreme Courtin the same manner as qaes- tions of law are now certified frem the Circuit Court upon a division of opinion of the Justices sitting therein. If the Ceurt find in favor of tha: petitioner it may assess and determine the sums which will be an indemnity to tne party or pawties Claliae and ap portion the same between them: under the principles and provisions hereinvefore set forth fer the loss claimed in each petition re--. spectively, and where the assessment of the loss in- volves the examination of accounts, books and? vouchers the judge may send the cause to aw auditer, to be by him appointed, to examine tne same and hear the parties thereén, and report the: result of such examination to the Court'and order a judgment against the United States, with costs taxed as in equity causes, in favor of the prevail- ing | oaghd whe shall appear to have been the owncr of the property or suffered the less, in the amount ofa jnst and true indemnity for his said foss;: which judgment shall conclude every other ty or claimant fer said loss, a8 such party would be concluded by a judgment in rem, in admiralty pro- ceedings, Said ats epic shall als@ set forth whether at the trial the claimant was insured or uninsttred on said property, by what vessel and when, a8 near as may be, said property was dc- stroyed, and under which of the aferementioned classes of claims sald loss talls; and a certificate of said seagate under the seal of said Court, . being issued to the party in whose favor the said judgment is given, he shall, on | Abpbdtd gl to the Secretary of the Treasury, pe patd by a warrant drawn in his favor for the same, ont of moueys paid by the govern- ment of Great Britain in satistaction of said award in the manner hereinafter provided. Ip case the Court shail find that nothing is due te any claimant under his petition, or that he has heen fully patd for his losses actually imcurred by the: insurance he has received, then judgment shall be entered for the United States, which shall be tual. unless a question of law is certified to the United States Supreme Court, as is hereinbefore provider. All original petitions must be filed under this act on or béfore the first day of July, in the year 1874, and all supplemental petitions, as herein provided,, Raye four ae thersalters or the claim shall ¢ beld as forever barred. Sec. 4.—That the claim of the United States for indemnity from said award, as hergin provided, may be ascertained by @ petition filed by the Attorney General in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, wherein like proccedingy shall be had as are herembetore provided for other claimants, except that any party having an inter- est in same award may auswer thereto, SEO. 5.—" when it shall appear to the Secretary of the Treasury by the certificate of the Circuit Court, under the seal thereof, that a judgment has been rendered in favor of a claimant, and that the claim comes with! ither of the four first described classes of losses herein set forth, he shall issue bis warrant forthe payment of the same out of any moneys in the Treasury arising trom the satisfu tion by Great Britain of said award. But in cas said certificate shall show that the clalinant’s losses arose under either of the remaining clusses ot Josses hercinbefore-set forth, then he shall cause suid certificate to be filed in the Treasury and re- tained until the Ist day of July, in the year 18745 and if it shail then appear that the claims of which. he Secretary has received notice exceed | jount received iu satisfaction of said aw ue he ‘Treasury ratably in proportion to the amo tificat 0 filed, retainiag, however, a sum equal to the claims remaining unadjudicated. And whe it shall be made to appear thereafterward that all the claims have been adjudicated and determined except the claims which may have been appealed to the Supreme Court, the Secretary of the Treas- ury may divide, in the same manner, the remain der of satd sum, retaining an amount equal to the claims pending before the Supreme Court, amony the said several certificates of said remaining classes; and when it shail be made to apear that ali claims have been adjudicated which have been tiled under tae limitations of this act then the Se retary of the Treasury shall divide any rematnde of said award ratably among all the artindicate: claims of such classes, 80 as to.pay all an equal per- centage of said sum or so much thercot as may re main after the first four classes hereinbefore set forth Wave been fully paid, but in no cuse to an amount of said certificate, SEC. That when said award shall be paid by Great Britain to the Secretary of State of the United States, he shall notify the se ry of the ‘Treasury thereof, aud pay the award into the Treas ury of the United States for the bencit of the claimants in the manner herein provided, where- upon the Secretary of the Treasury shal the same in five per cent bonds of the States, or such other securities of the United States as he may deem proper, and sell such bonds, as the money may be needed to pay the certideates of losses hereinbefore mentioned. And li, alter all the certificates are paid in tull, there 1s any sum OF principal er interest remaiuing of said aware, vie ration claiming: * " 4