J 

[i 

546 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

SATl]RD.A.Y, January 18, 1879. 

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. W. V. TUDQR, 

of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, Saint Louis, ~Missouri. 

The Journal of yesterday was read and app:oved. 

GE~""EV A AWARD. 

Mr. FRYE and ~Ir. :McMAHON demanded the regular order of 

business. 

The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the unfinished busi- ness coming over from a former session, which has been interrupted. by other subjects t@lllporarily and is the bill known as the Geneva 

award bill, on which the gentleman from Maine [Mr. HALE] has seventeen minute •. :h!r. HALE. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island, [Mr. 

EAMES.) · :h!r. EAMES. Mr. Speaker, upon the question of distributing the 

balance of the Geneva award, with regard to which the committee to 

which the subject has been referred are nearly equally divided, I desire in connection with my vote to put on record very briefly my reasons for it. 

In the report of the committee, the fact to which every member of 

the Honse must gi\"e his assent is stated, "that in consequence of the 

appearance upon the high seas of the Alabama and other confederate 

cruisers, fitted out and sailed from British wators, a large portion of 

the American commercial marine was speedily transferred to the British flag, while such of our ship-owners and merchants who either preferred or were compelled by circumstances to keep their vessels and 

cargoes under the flag of their own co.untry, were subjected to the payment of greatly enhanced rates of msurarrce when they ckose to or could insure at all." 

This statement of the committee, if not in words, substantially adtnits that the ships and their cargoes sailing under the American flag were driven from the high seas and the loss which resulted thereby 

t<> American citizens was attributable to "the failure of the British 

government to propef'ly dis0harge its duties as a neutral, by negligently permitting co:rifederate cruisers to be fitted out, supplied, and 

sailed from British porta." The committee in this statement are as accurate in fact as they are precise in their language. The American commerce was not driven from the high seas solely by the Alabama, 

Florid'a, and Shenandoah; but if neither of these cruisers had been 

fitted out fro.JD British ports there would not have been any other 

confederate cruiser afloat to capture and destroy an American ship or cargo. The act of Great Britain, therefore, in regard to the Alabama, 

the Florida, and Shenandoah was indirectly the occasion· of ·all the 

damage to American commerce, whether by these or by any other con- federate cruiser. 

Now, MBt Speaker. after the war had closed and this Government, 

in the conflict of arms, had vindicated and established its lawful au- thority, the great injury which had arisen from the unfriendly acts 

of a neutral power became a serious question between Great Britain 

and this country, and threatened the peace of the. two countries. 

Happily this difficulty was averted by the agreement to submit these 

differences to a peaceful arbitrament. Under this agreement fifteen 

and one-half millions have been paid by Great Britain to the United 

Statel!l, ap<>rtien of which has been distributed under the law of 1874, 

aDd with regard to the balance of which we have now before us the 

propositions of the committee and of the minority of the committee. 

How ought this balance to be distributed Y is the question which we here, by our votes, are called upon to decide. ·I propose to answer this question so far as to indicate, in a few words. the reasons for my own vote. 

The treaty of Washington was but an agreement between Great 

Britain and the United States to submit to the arbitrament of the tribunal for which it yrovided, certain matters of difference between the 

two government&, mvolving the interests of this Government and its 

citizens. . If; therefore, we would act wisely upon the question now before 

the House, it would be well to keep in mind what, under the treaty 

of Washington, was submitted tl> the decision of the Geneva tribunal, 

and also at the same time not to lose sight of what was the award or decision of that tribunal. In this way we may correctly decide for 

what the fifteen and one-half millions was awarded. and thus determine to whom it should in equity and justice be distributed. 

What, then; was submitted to this tribunal :tnd for what was the 

$15,500,000 awarded f 

This Government submitted in its own behalf certain claims for 

indirect damages arising from the continuation of the war and for 

the general injury which had been done to American commerce in the 

transfer of it to the British flag. These claims'for good and sufficient 

reasons were waived by this Government, and the other claims, of the 

insurance companies and of American citizens for the destruction of 

their ships and property, without regard to the loss by any'particnlar confederate cruiser, and for enhanced rates of premium, were left to 

the consideration and determination of the court of arbitrament. 

Some of these claims were admitted and others were rejected by 

the tribunal, and its final decision was not t<1 divide and apportion 

the award among those for which they held the British go-vernment 

responsible, but to name under the seventh article of the treaty a sam in gross, and in their award to determine that this sum should be in 

full satisfaction of all claims 1·e[erred for decision, .with an express 

notice from this Government that in such e\"ent the United States 

should be at liberty to dispose of this sum in gross, awarded for all 

claims refocred, as in its discretion seemed to be just and in accocdance 

with justice and equity. . In pursuance of this notice, a portion of this fund, under the law 

of 1874, ha~ been distributed among those who were justly entitled to 

it, and the balance now herd is proposed to be distributed by the bills. now pending before the Honse. 

To whom in equity and justice does this baL'tnce belong! My reply 

to this inquiry is, to all American citizens who have actually sus- tained loss, either directly or indirectly, by the acts of the British 

government, a.nd that no distinction ought to be made with respect 

t.o injuries by cruisers denominated inculpated or excuJpated. But 

for the fitting out of the inculpated cruisers, I repeat, no so-called 

exculpated cruisers would have been afloat to commit depredations 

upon the ships a.nd car~oes of American citizens; and therefore, 

under the submission ancL award, no distinction ought to be made in 

the distribution of this balance, but it should be applied upon the 

broad, just, and equitable principle of reimbursing any loss occa- sioned by any of the confederate cruisers. 

And such seems to be the condusion to which the committee have come. In general language, they propose to submit·to the determination of the court all claims without distinction, and to leave it to 

the court upon the facts and according to equity and justice to determine for what and to whom, whether citizen or insurance compa.ny, 

the money shall be paid for damages actually sustained either by inculpated or exculpated cruisers, or by the payment of war premiums 

to insure American ships and cargoes against loss by these cruisers. 

And yet there seems to be a doubt whether the bill of the committee does not in fact exclude a large portion of such claims from the 

consideration of the court. 

Why not, then, remove this doubt by the exact language which will 

make the duty of the court in this respect clear and plain! 

The speech the other day of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. 

BICIDrnLL,] in favor of the bill of the committee, from his standpoint demonstrated that only those who had suffered loss by the so- called inculpated cruisers had, under the bill of the committee, any 

legal or equitable claim upon this 'fund for the losses which they had 

sustained; while the eqnall_y clear argument of the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, [:h!r. STIDiGER,] who is of the committee reporting the p~nding bill, established the fact that the court to which the distribution is referred could consider all claims presented, and without 

regard to whether the damage occasioned wa-s by the payment of war premiums or was by an inculpated or an exculpated cruiser. 

As between these conflicting views with regard to the bill reported 

by the committee, it seems to me that it would be prudent and wise 

to give to the court such specific directioru~ that no class of claimants 

having a.ctnally suffered loss, either directly or indirectly,·by the act 

of the British gov~rnment shall be excluded from participating in the 

distribution of this fund. Such direction would be not only consistent with the submission to the Geneva tribunal, but in exact accord 

with the award which that tribunal made, as well as with the ex- pressed purpose, in case of an award in gross, of this Government to· distribute the fund as to it seemed equitable and just. 

And a-s a member of this House who belleves that no distinction 

should be made between American citizens who, directly or indirectly,. 

by the act of the BritiSh government have suffered actual loss, eitherby the inculpated or the exculpated confederate cruisers or by thepayment of war premiums. I think it just and wise that such speci1ic 

direction should be given to the court. 

Such direct.ion in no true sense interferes with the judicial power- as limited in the Constitution of the United States. It merely names. the classes of claimants who have a right to present their claims as entitled to a part of this fund, and with reference to euch claimants. 

leaves ·the court upon the faets to determine the persons entitled tO> 

it and the amount of their claims. 

With these views upon the pending question, I shall vote for ·the 

proposition of the minority of the committee. 

The principle which underlies their proposition, as I understand it, 

is to distribute this fund among actual sufferers, either directly or- indirectly, by the negligent act of the British government. And the 

bill of the minority provides by specific directions for the distribntien 

of the balance among those who have actna.lly suffered loss. It provides for the equitable distribution of the fund, and because it does, 

it ought· to receive, and I hope it will receive, the approval of the 

Honse. 

Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Geneva award bill has run along and bas been full and complete, and now it is rriore importa.nt an early vote shall be reached than anything else. Therefore I 

shall not, as I originally propOsed, undertake to make any elaborate. speech, but will only call attention of members to certain points 

which in the interval since the last discussion may have somewhat 

floated away from their~minds. 

It is really, sir, a contest between the insurance co~paniea of thegreat cities and the parties upon whom unrelieved losses fell by reason of the depredation of confederate cruisers. The .Alabama and her 

sister cruisers dro\"e from the seas a prosperous American commerce~ 
1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 

It aeclined from year to year; men who persisted in maintaining 

their ships under the American flag found their property depreciating 

from day to day, and that competition with the English ships was growing more and more, so that when the war ended the owners of the 

American commercial marine were struck down. It was a prostrate 

interest, and one of the grievances at that time uppermost in theAmericaa mind was against Great Britain because she had afforded opportunity to those cruisers to do this damage. 

Durino- the time when this interest was growing more .and more pros rat~ under the conditions of the war, there was another interest 

t hat o-r.ew up and blossomed almost like Jonah's gourd, in a night, and 

that ;'vas the marine-insurance. interest. It thrived upon the losses of 

the community. It was like an underta~er, who is m~st prosperous 

when pestilenc~ stalks abroad, an~ the mSll!ance busmess of these 

marine cqmparnes was as much brul.t up dunng the w~r and mad~ a prosperous business upon the one s1de, as was the rum of the ship-

()Wners and the freighters on the other side. · Now when the war ended this grievance in the mind of the Ameri- can cit izen was prosecuted by our State Department, representing our citizens, from time to t ime, against the British government. We had - more than one treaty; the Johnson-Clarendon treaty and the other 

treaty t hat was negotiated but never a.cted upon. From year to year 

after the war the grievance against Grea~ Britain in the mind of the 

American people grew so that at last wlSo and thoughtful men believed that out of it might at any time come a war. Now I ask anybody who is inclined here to vote for the majority 

bill-which, as my friend from New York said the ot,her day, is a clean 

bill for the insurance companies, and nothing else-I ask anybody 

here who is inclined to vote that way to put to himself this question, 

whether at that time any portiOn of the American people, or any large 

portion of the American people, was pushing for a settlement with 

Great Britain with the idea that war might arise if this thing was not settled; whether anybody at that time was prosecuting this thing 

in .favor of the insurabce companies. Was there any danger, Mr. 

Speaker, that America and Great Britain would go to war because of 

the insurance companies, which had grown rich in ·consequence of the 

war, which bad erected enormous buildings and had paid higher salaries and greater dividends from year to year¥ Was it for them ne- gotiations were set on foot and all the powers of diplomacy brought 

to bear to settle this great international question ' Why, sir, if at 

that time anybody had been told this fund was to go to add to the 

increased stores of the insurance companies the American people would 

h ave ceased to take a particle of interest in the controversy and we never wonld have heard of .it again. The Geneva tribunal was not 

set afoot because the American people believed there might be war unless the insurance companies were paid; but the sufferers all along 

the coast, in every State, which had built and owned ships, the American citizen's impoverished by the acts of these cruisers, were the men behind this agitation and the people for whom the Government interposed. . - So we got the tribunal and the award, and at once the insurance 

companies come to the surface on the right, as they claim, of subrogation. Now, Mr. Speaker, that does not apply here. I cannot go 

into a legal discussion on this subject, for I have not twe. It has 

been gone over very thoroughly in this Congress and in other Con-

§l'esses. The insurance companies claim a legal right to be substitnted.if they paid for the ships or their damages to the rights of the 

insured. Now, if they have ~ot any right under subrogation, it is a clean, bare, unrelieved, technical legal right. All insurance lawyers 

know that subrogation is a right which is defined and complete in 

law, of such :1 nature that the insurance companies may go into the 

courts and maintain aml enforce it. 

Now, if the insurance companies have any rights that are complete as legal rights, why have they not been in the courts T The answer is they must have congressional legislation to let them into the courts; 

that is the·position they are in now. There is no right of subrogation, no right of insurance companies which. they can maintain unless 

Congress gives them the right. We are now confronted with therequest that we give them the right which in privat~ cases they get as a technical legal ri~~t; and that brings up the whole question of our duty in regard to tnis fund. # 

On this question of the legal technical right there is a broader view 

than any court can take. I maintain here freely and boldly when I am asked if I am afraid to send this question to the courts that there are some subject-matters that are of a broader scope and nature than should be dealt with simply by a court. The right of subrogation is claimed here. Why~ sir, it would not be any more absurd if in case of a vessel that had been wrecked or damaged and paid for or repaired 

by t he insurance company the insurance company should claim it had a right to the medal given to the master of that ship for gallant 

conduct. This iB a thing that does not come under any legal right 

attaching it to the act of the vessel or to the aet of the insurance 

company. This is a great, broad political question. Why, sir, let me give an illustration. When thewarended averylargeclassof meritorious claims connected with the transactions of the war came up 

and were pushed against the Government; southern claims, meritorious claims, and claims of' Union men. What did Congress do f 

We had plenty of courts. We had the Supreme Court, and circuit courts~ but Congress specially organized a court for these claims. 

Congress sAid, thls is a great question, beyond the question of claims ; 

it is a question that Congress must settle; and Congress must establish a tribunal of its. own; it must make a basis of its action ; and 

must make the rnles by which it should be governed. So we established the southern commission which reports to Congress, because 

in all that vast subject-matter there was something more than a 

legal question. 

The results of operati()n of theAlabama and 'other cruisers involved 

broad questions of statesmanship; involved the securing of a gross 

fund which is now in the hands of Congress, in order to give to those 

that suffered-to t.hose for whom Congress intervened and set the tribunal afoot; and it should not be said that any court was established 

by Con~ess, with rules for its action, so as to keep the jurisdiction 

within Jts own power. It is for that reason, looking into the future, 

the Secretary of State instructed the counsel in these words: 

You will be careful not to commit the Government as to the disposition of what 

may be awarded. The Government wishes to hold itself free to decide as to the 

rights and claims of insw:ers upon the termination of the case. 

There wa.s no intimation then and there that there were any legal 

rights to be decided by any conrt, but that the Government retained 

the right of deciding who should be entitled to this fund. Now, the 

bill provides, and very adroitly-although, as my friend from New 

York said the other day, it is a bill for the insurance companies and 

nothing else-that upon the principles of justice, equity, and the laws 

of nations this shall be apportioned. 

Now, I do not know that if this question ever went to the courts 

that; the insurance companies would dare to assert that they could 

claim it by the technical right of subrogation. But they did some- thing; they made an assignment of their policies and followed it up 

by a reassignment; and it must be by something of this kind that t~ey 

claim under this bill. · 

There is not a lawyer wllP does not know that the word ''equity," 

in courts, is got to be just as well established by rules and practice as the word "law." The courts are just aa much bound by rnles in 

equity as they are in law. 

I have discussed this question heretofore in another Congress, and 

I have no time to go o-ver it again now, but the word itself gives JU) 

scope to the tribunal in the direction of relieving the men who suffered absolutely, the war-premium men, who struggled along, keeping 

their vessels under the American flag, and refused to .transfer them 

to the British flag because of their pride in our nationality. 

Now, the insurance companies have tried this thing over and over· again. Beaten in one Congress, they have come to another, and it 

may be fairly claimed that as a precedent they wish to destroy the 

action of the House in 1814. That was a Congress that was fresh 

upon this subject, and the rule was fixed there that excluded the in- surance companies, and now we ar9 asked to go back beyond this and 

pass a bill clearly for their interest and for nobody else. I maintain 

that under the bill of the majority no other man can get a dollar, and 

that is why it is pushed by the insnrahce companies . . Mr. Speaker, you and I, dw;ing our te:q._years' service ha>e seen cer- tain things very noticeable before this House. We have seen men with llonest claims, that should have been paid when ;first presented, 

drag along for years, and at last in very weariness of spirit and bec,a.use Congress would not relieve them, they left ns in despair or died 

in Washington. 

There have been many instances of individuals who have just claims 

against the Government who died here because they were unable to 

get away, and because they had not the power and force of will to 

continue the prosecution of their claims. But there are certain large 

interests that never die. They clamor and "knock at our doors from 

year to year and will never die. 

There are seven or eight millions in this matter which, if the bill 

pass, will go to the insurance companies, which from the day when this 

matter was first spoken of have maintained able counsel here in Washington, in the committec.-rooms and• dogging the members at their 

residences. The mone.y is enough so that this interest which always 

appears here never dies. It is always here. It employs counsel in 

the committees, and who have the right to com~ here on the floor to 

besiege the members at their desks. Our desks have been loaded with 

documents, arguments, and speeches by one man and another, kept up 

by this immense interes.t that is bound never to le..1.ve the Ameriean 

Congress until it wears it out and gets its claim through. Every 

Congress thus far has smitten this claim in the faoo, has denied ip 

and defied it, and said that it had no right in equity or in law, but 

that the fund should be kept for the men who actually suffered loss. 

Now with all the investigations that have been had, with all the light 

which has been thrown upon the subject, I do not believe that even with all the persistent efforts of the insurance companies this House 

is prepared to go ba.ck upon its own record and reverse the principles 

of the act of 1874 and give this money to companies to whom it does 

not belong either in fairness or in law. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Speaker, we have about $10,000,000 of the 

Geneva award fund to be yet distribut-ed; not because we recei ve<l 

too much money from Gr~at Britain, but for other reasons which I 

will allude to hereafter. The question now is, shall this money be 

distributed by Congress; or will Congress shut its eyes to the merits 

of the various c1aimants and remit the whole subject to a court of 

law, leavin~ to that court alone the settlement of the conflicting rights and mterests of the pn.rties, if they have any f 
548 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J..U'UARY 18, 

· The inost plausible argument that can be addressed to the legislator or to the average American mind is ·a proposition to leave anything of a troublesome nature to the courts. We went so far in that 

direction recently as to submit to a so-called court the sovereign 

right of this Honse to count the electoral vote. For one, I had an experience upon that occasion which without good ground I am not 

willing to repeat. And I am not in favorofremittingtoany judicial 

tribunal the duties that belong to us as legislators. 

I do not believe in the proposition :which underlies the argument 

of those gentlemen who openly plead for the insurance companies, 

or of those who plead for the majority bill Without expressing an opinion upon the rights of anybody. Therefore, with the consent of 

the other members of the minority of the committee, I have drawn a substitute which is based upon an entirely different theory and, as I hope to show, upon a theory sanctioned by la.w and precedent and 

founded in common sense and natural justice. 

The proposition made in favor.of the insurance companies is that 

they have a claim, or rather I should say a right, legal or equitable, 

to this fund. And they ask to be allowed to go into court to assert it. 

Now, if I believed that anybody had ·such legal or equitable right I 

would be the last man to refuse this request. I am not in favor of 

confiscation. If the insurance companies have a legal or equitable 

right to any part of this fund I for one would not, under any circumstances, agree to cut off that right by any act or vote of mine. 

I said that the insurance companies believe or claim that they 

have a legal-or equitable right to this fund. And the gentlemen who 

advocate the majority bill as an impartial bill b~tween the contending parties must advocate the proposition that so·me person or cor- poration has a right to this fund, because a proposition to refer to the 

courts musi! be a proposition to refer some title to the court which it · can consider, and mustinvolvesomethin~~tmorethan the enforcement 

of mere moral obligations. The bill of the majority, though.seemin(J' 

to be in the interests of neither cla-ss of claimants, is therefore basea 

upon the theory of the insurance companies, that some rights exist 

enforceable in the ordinary courts of law. 

It is because there is neither a legal nor an equitable right to this 

fund · in any person or corporation that I believe, not only that it 

-ought to be distributed by Congress, but that it must be so distributed. 

The ar~ument that certain 1•ights exist in this fund and, permit me to .say, w1th all due deference to the eminent gentleman by whom it was first made, the fundamental m-ror of gentlemen speaking for the 

insurance companies or the majority bill, is that all national claims were excluded. by the ·tribunal at Geneva by the· order of June 22, 

1872; and that after that order nothing was submitted to the tribunal 

-except, in the expressive language of the present Secretary of State, 

"''a bundle of private claims." This is the unde!'lying a1·gument of 

1:he insurance companies. It is the argument of the gentleman who 

will follow me in support of the majority bill; it cannot but be his 

ru-gnmeRt. It was the argument of gentlemen who have preceded me. ·And upon this foundation rests the proposition that those whose 

claims seem to have been allowed there should be paid, and no others. 

.And that all should be excluded here who were rejected at Geneva. 

This is not. true; and if the foundation of the argument is fallf!le, 

the argument must fall. The claims that were excluded n.t Geneva were the "indirect claims," not the "national claims." I ask gentle- men to read the order excluding them. That will be proof sufficient. 

Certain :rl~tional and private claims were ruled out, not because they were natiOnal or private, but because they were" indirect," or conse- quential. As conclusive proof of this assertion, I call attention to the award 

itself; because if national claims were excluded by any preliminary 

order of that tribunal, prior to its entering upon the investigation of 

the case, as only the ''indirect" claims were, then we would find nothing in the award admitting or rejecting a national claim. But what 

is the fact ! The record will show that after the unanimous order excludin~ indirect l~sses, the Government of the United States offered 

proof of 1ts expenses in the pursuit of the various confederate cruisers. 

This was considered and passed upon in the final judgment, and if 

gentlemen will turn to the award which was rendered September 14, 

1872, they will find that the tribunal gave the following opinion upon 

this question : . And whereas, so far aa relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed by the 

United States, the costs of pursuit of the confederate cruisers are not, in the jndg· ment of the tribunal, pro.J;lerly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the Untted States, 

The tribunal is therefore of opinion, by a majority of three to two voicesThat there is no grc>und for awarding to the Unite4 States any sum by way of 

indemnity under this head. 

This is concl~ive proof that the 'ltnanimous judgment of the tribunal on the 22d of J nne, 1872, against indirect losses was only against 

them because of their indirect character and not because they were 

public claims. Therefore when the distinguished gentleman, now Secretary of State, said in his argument before oB.e of the committees 

of a former House-which argument is so often repeated-that after 

the order referred to nothing was submitted to the tribunal at Geneva 

but a "bundle of private claims," he was presenting his case as a lawyer with aJarge present, a larger prospective fee. He was arguing his 

side of the case-not presenting an unbiased opinion-leaving to the 

committee and the House to decide the question. He never gave any 

such opinion, he never made any such statement while occupying 

an independent position; nor did he make it to the tribunal at Geneva. 

when acting for the Government of the United States. 

Mr. Speaker! so far from it ·being true that" private claims " were submitted to tne tribunal ::tt Geneva as "private claims," I m::tke the 

assertion, and I propose to support it by distinguished authority at 

home and abroad, that all that was submitted to the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva was a question between the two government-s, all 

that was passed upon was the question between the two governments; 

and when private claims were presented they were brought forward 

in the attitude of witnesses, and witnesses only, as to the extent of the 

injuries suffered by the American Government; not as the claims of 

individuals prosecuted either by themselves in persoa or by their attorney, or by their trustee or agent, the United States Government , as some gentlemen claim. 

This whole question lies within the narrowest compass. Did our Government in the treaty stipulate for the payment of the claims of 

individuals as private claims, or did it stipulate for the settlement of a question of a public character f Did the tribunal at Geneva award 

upon private claims, or did it award to the nation 'f If these claims were presented at Geneva as private claims on behalf of individuals 

and were awarded to the United States for the benefit of these citi- · zens, and no others, th,e case would com'e within the precedents cited 

in the majority report, to which I expect to refer more at length in 

the course of my argument. 

Mr. Speaker, when I affirm that no private claims were submitted, as such, to the tribunal at Geneva, I do not wish this proposition 

'to stand upon the authority of my opinion, for that would have no weight. I desire to call the attention of the House to various public 

documents containing the history of this transaction, with some other persuasiv~ proof. I read first, from volume 6 of the papers relating to 

the Geneva award, the instructions which Mr. Secretary Fish gav-e to 

General Schenck and the other commissioners selected·by the Government of the United States to frame the treaty of Wa.shiugt.on, and 

under which they acted in agreeing to the sa!ne. He says, page 275: 

Yon will receive herewith a cqnfidential memorandum or brief embodyina a ref. erence to correspondence of this Department and to the history of sevemi" of the 

questions which may be discussed by the commission: First, the fisheries; second. 

the navigation of the "Saint Lawrence ; third, reciprocal trade between the United 

States and the Dominion of Canada; fourth, the northwest water boundary on the 

strait of San Juan; fifth, the claims of the United States agajnst Great Britain on account of ads committ.ed by rebel cruisers; sixth, claims of British subjects against the United States for losses and i.njuriesarisingont of nets committed during the recent civil war of the United States. 

Observe the difference between sections 5 and 6. The Al::tbama claims are spoken of in section 5 as "claims of the United States," 

not as claims of the United Statee and citizens thereof, or claims of 

citizens of the United States, but exclusively as" claims of the United 

States." But when private claims are spoken of in the fo1lowi.ng paragraph they are alluded to as claims of "subjects of Great Britain," 

and riot as cl::Wns of Great Britain. · Men who engage in the highest offices of government, such as negotiating treaties between sovereign powers, which are always open to 

the closest scrutiny and narrowest construction that interest may 

dictate, and in reference to which extreme care in the use of language 

is of the greatest importance, because out of a varying construction 

may come that great calamity, war-I say that men who exercise 

these great offices always study in the closest manner the exact meun- ing of words and use them with the greatest circumspection. • In the framing of the treaty itself the same care was observed in 

distinguishing the Alabama claims from private claims. A compari- son of article 1 of the treaty of Washington with article 12 will make 

the distinction most apparent. When the treaty speaks iii article 1 

oi the claims of one government against the other") it uses L·mguage 

which specifically covers the claim of one government against an- other. But 'fhen in article 12 it treats of the settlement of private 

claims, it uses no doubtful words. What is the language of the treaty'f 

I read from page 410 of ~he same book. Article 1 provides: 

Whereas differences have arisen between the Gi>vernment of the United States 

and the government of Her Britannic Majesty, and still exist, trrowing out of the acts committed by the several ':'essels which have given rise to tbe claims generic- :illy known as the .Alabama claims, &c. 

I need not re:ul furthet; but it is sufficient to say that nowhere in 

this treaty are the Alabama claims referred to as claims of citizens of 

the United States against Great Britain, nor is compensation'to them 

provided for. Under articles 1 to 11, inclusive, the tribunal at Gen- eva was established for the settlement of past and gre::tt present and 

future international questions between the two nations. It was to 

consider nothing but the question whether Great Britain hn.d failed in 

her duty to the United States, and to determine the extent of theresponsibility that might grow out of her possible neglect. But when we turn to article 12 of the treaty what do we find ! The two powers are here contracting about the settlement of the claims of priv::tte 

individuals or corporations, and what is the language they there use f 

There is no mistake in it ; a111d it has been copied from previous 

treaties: 

The high contracting parties agree that all claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals1 citizens of the United States, upon the government of Her Britannlc Majesty, arismg out of the aots committed against the per- sons or property of citizens of the United States dming the period between the 

13th of April, 1861, and the 9th of ·April, 1865, inclnsi ve; not being claims growing out of the acts of the vessels- referred to in article 1 of this treaty, and nil claims, 

with the like exception, on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, sub}ects of H n· B ritannic Jlajesty, t•pon the Government of the United States, 
1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 549 

arising out of acts committed against the persons or property of subjects of Her They certainly knew, better than he or I, the nature of the case. Britannic Majesty during the same period, which may nave been presented to They oortainly had the best counsel in either country as to the chareither government for its interposition with the other, and which yet remain nn- acter of the controversy. "~d, in my J"ndsrment, no doubt would ever settled, as well as any other such claims which may be presented within the time L4.L " 

specified in article 14 of this treaty, shall be referred, &c. have been raised upon this point but from the immense power of the 

Referred to what 'I To the tribunal at Geneva, to which had been corporations who have an interest in a different construction, witll 

referred the Alabama claims 'I Oh, no; they did not aonfound the the ability to confuse judgment by the employment of a multiplicity 

public with the private questions, and consequently they provided for of well-known and well-paid lawyers of high reputation. a separate commission, which was to meet in the city of Washington, I pass now from the opinions of eminent-statesmen to another kind 

and it met there and acted upon all these private claims arising upon of testimony-the judgment of a court upon the very question inthe part of citizens of either of the two countries against the govern- volved. Of course, I do not allude to it as binding upon us. ment of the other. . After we passed the law of June 23, 1874, providing for a partial 

After the treaty was ratified, how was its language construed by distribution of this money, the conrt provided for therein met and 

the gentleman who was at the head of our Government and had charge gave decisions in many interesting cases. I will cite the opinion of 

of these matters f I have here his instructions to our attorneys when the court in two of them. 

they were departing for Geneva. What does he say to them~ I will cite :first the opinion of the court in the case of Rhind t'B. 

In the discussion of this question and in the treatment of the entire case you United States, to be found on page 33 of the report of the clerk of :will be careful not to commit the Government as to the disposition of what may be said court to the honorable Secretary of State: 

awarded or what may be recovered in the e~ent of the appointment of a board of Has he [the petitionerl such a riuht 1· He had a. riaht of property in the shin assessors. which the A.la.bama destroyed, and he lost it without any act on the part of the 

Mentioned in the lOth article of the treaty. I G~vernment of the U~ted States, which co~d ¢ve ~redress againtl~ it. The . . . . . . Government of the Uruted States was not obliged to claun from Great Bntain pay- The Government wishes to hold Itselfjree to decide a.s to the rtghts of the ~lm,ms oftn- ment of the loss, but aoted in that regard according to its sovereign pleasure. It ·. surers. If the value of th.e p~ope!"ty captured or destroyed be rec?vered m the na~ did not succeed in obtaining payment of the whole of the claims presented, and 

of the Go'Vernln:ent tb~ dis~bution of the amoun~ reco~ered w_ill. be made by this the most careful investigation of t1w "Proceedings a.t Geneva has failed to show ~vernment 1otthout cotnmtttal as to the mode of dt.stn.?mtwn. It IS expected all such what claims were includea in tho awaro and what excluded therefrom. The award 

commital will be avoided. was made in favor of the Gavernment and not in favor Q/ the claimants. .The GovAnd yet, sir, in tHe face of that explicit instruction to our counsel, ernD?-ent thus vindica~d the national bono~, but it ~d not ~ume to. pay any which was as implicitly followed by them the insurance companies particular. class of c1'1unan~s nor any P!lrticular c!aun. Hwvm~ obtained the . . ' money by Its own act and atlts own cost, It had the nght to prescnoe the terms on say to us that the Umted States Government went to Geneva only as which the distribution should be made. It certainly had the power to exclude . a lawyer, as a claim agent., aB a trustee, or in some other belittling cer.tain claimants and to include ~thersless meritorious. In theactnow before us, capaoity, in which it was pushing the claims of insurance companies claunants are excluded •who believe theJI!selyes jus~ly entitled to a. part of the 

which had already more money than they well knew what to do with· fn?d, but they haven<? power t_o assert the'! nt;ht to It. Unuer. the powers com- . ' Inltted to us, we ha~e m some mstances reJected- altogether clauns presented at and money, too, made out of war nsks. No; we never would have Geneva and in many more instances we ha.~e largely reduced such claims in 

hazarded all the great risks of war, with all the calamities incident amount: 

thereto, for the purpose of putting additional sums in the coffers of In the second case · the case of Robeson as Secretary of tll.e Navy insuranc~ companies-never! What we wanted was a settlemen~ of t·s. The United Sta~, for the recovery of the value of a vessel of wa~ thequestwnsb~twee~ the two governments. We wanted tbeseclarms belonging to the United States GQvernment destroyed by the Alatreated as public claliDS, as th~y are; and aa such they were treated. bama, the court giving judgm~nt against Mr. Robeson, as Secretary, 

We waRted tosettlesomequ~s~wnsforthe~uture,b~cau~, although we uses the following language, (see page 121 of the same report:) 

bo.ppened to oceup;v the positiOJ?- of a belligerent .m this unfortunate The reclamation made upon Great Britain was made by our Government in ~ts war, our usual policy had been m the past, and will be for the future, capacity of sovereign, and not as a mere representative of prh:ate interests and 

to occupy the position of a neutral, and we really desired adverse de- the in!lemnit-Y. received has been paid to the UB.ited States as a gove~ent. 'The 

cisions on many pending questions be<!ause they would tend to our fund IS now m the Treasnry entirely nnder the control of Cougress, mvested as b fit · th f t direeted by Congress, and was so when the act constituting this court was passed. ene lll e U ure. . . . . . Congress might ha~e refused t~ pass any act providin~ for the indemnification of 

I pass now to the rest of thiS hiStory. When th1s claim was bemg citizens ; it mi~ht have retained the whole fund; it did appropriate such part of 

prosecuted at Geneva our attorneys said distinctly, we prosecute this th~ fund as it Judged j_ust and right to be distributoo among_ certain classes of as a case of one government against another. The following Ian- ~aunants thex:efor. ~ter th~ payment of the ~?nnt of_ oar JUdgm~nts, as pro- o- o- db th . Vlded by law, It may still retain the balance re:m.ammu, or 1t ma.y proVIde for afur- o uaoe was use Y em· ther distribution amol!lg other classes of claimants. B'ut in so doina- it will dispose 

These claims are all preferred by the United States as a nation against Great of its own; of money held in the Treasnry of the Government Gee from an reEritain as a. nation, and are to be so computed and paid. straints except thosa which ought to infinence any sovereign power, nnder the cirAfter we recovered the money, which was distinctly awarded to the cumstances. • .. 

Government of the United States, free from any claim of any private A MEMBER. "\"Vhat court gave those (~e:<J!SIOns i . • citizen, Great Britain took measures to provide for its payment. The Mr. :McMAHON._ The c.ou;t of commiSSIOners of Alabama clarms, 

appropriation of the money was made on the 26th day of :May, 1873. In compo~ed of five JUdges SItting under the l~ w of J nne, 187 4-g~~tlethe course of the debate in the House of Commons (to be found in ~en wtth whom I am not personally a~quamted, but whose demswns 

Foreign Relations of U.S., 1873, part 1, 'pages 368 to 377) l\Ir. Glad- and impartia;lity I am assured gave pre~ty gene~al satis~action. 

stone, then chancellor of the exchequer, replying to some strictures I _do no~ WISh to ~e understood as castmg any 1IDpu~ation npon ~he 

of the opposition, used the following language, (see page 374 :) entire !al!"ess. claimed by gentle~en of _the commt~e _rep~g 

Then the honorable gentleman asks why the arbitrators decided upon the claims the ma~onty bill i· but ~hat cla~se~ 1D sec~wn 1 of the~r bill, whiCh 

of the United States before they considered the British claims against the United orders the Court of Cla1ms to distrtbute this money " wtthout regard 

S?tes. The honorable gentleman is in error in supposJ.ng that it was intende~ t"6 to any 1·ule or principle of allowance, exclusion, inclusion or distribu-· gtv.e su~h prece4ence, or that precedenc.e was actually_gtve~ to ~e ;A-labama claims tion adopted bv the tribunal created by" the law of 187 4 would seem over pnvate claims. The Alabama clatm ~cas a publu; clatm arismg between the b · d ~ 1 h d · · · I b · · d ' I t.wo governments· the other claims were made by citizens of the United States to e aune express Y at t e eCISIODS a>e .JUSt Cite · And cannot 

a"gaillSt the British government. understand why the principle of these decisions should be set aside 

· H h d" t• tl · all 1 · f d eto th t · b al t or repealed, as they were the opinions of men learned in the l:tw; upon . e ere IS u;w y_recogmzes c aims re erre ~ n un a abstract questions, not depending solely upon a. construction of the G~n~va as pu_blw claw_18 ; ~d those ref~~:ef ~ ~he,\vashmgton com- law of 1874, but upon the effect of the treaty and award themselves. 

miss.wn, proVIded f?r m artwle .12~ as P1 tta e c arm~. Now, Mr. Speaker, I claim that if any one proposition, as a propo- After the resolution appropnating. the money was agreed to, the sition of authority can be established it is that the onl th" th t 

fo~owing ~ook place, (see page 377:) . . was presented at Gene•a was a natio~al claim; that th! on~~h;g Bi! I. Elphinsto~ asked the first lori of th~ treasury whether It 'Yas the m- that was passed upon was a claim between the two governments· tention of Her MaJes~'s o-overnment to subnnt the claims of Her MaJesty's sub- ' 

jects for losses sustained fiy the capture of vessels containing British property by and the only person to whom money was awarded was the Qo•ernthe Alabama to arbitration. · ment of the United States. · Mr. G~s~NE: Her MaJesty's government have ndhuc~ intt;ntion. I t1J!nk But this proposition does not depend upon authority. It would 

the question, Jurl:gmg from Its form, has beenput~deran entir~misavpreh~nsion. ha\e but little respectable authority for its support if it was not It appears to be am piled that the government subiDltted the clauns of certam per- . . . . sons not subjects of Her Majesty to arbitration. That is altogether a mistake. founded m reason and mternattonal law, as I Will now .proceed to No claims of individual.s have been submitted to arbitration in relation to the Ala- show to the best of my ability. The claim could not strictly be any 

bama. What was submitted to arbitration was entirely a question between the t:Lco other than a public claim for this simple reason: that all the property 

gO'Vernments. that was destroyed upon the high seas by confederate crui ers was 

Can an.ythingbemoreexpliciU No member of Parliament objected destroyed in a state of public ulw·, which by the law of nations is a to this statement. Of all its able lawyers and statesmen, not one legal destruction, and gives no claim to the citizen against his own rose in his seat and disputed its correctness. It was the accepted government, or against the government whose ·ships or citizens did 

British opinion of the public nature of the controversy. When I am the injury, or against those citizens, or against any op~n and acknow 1-

met upon this floor, Mr. Speaker, with the statement that only private edged or secret and insidious ally. When the ship and cargo go to 

claims were submitted and passed upon at Geneva, I must appeal the bottom of the sea the property is gone, and no right springs into 

from the judgment of the honorable gentleman from Indiana [Mr. existence in its place. But had our GQvernment been at peace with 

BICKXELL] who gave so dogmatic an opinion upon this question. I all the world and had the destruction of the ships.and cargoes of Amerappeal to the distinguished heads of the two governments, who had ic·an merchants occruTed by the wrongful act of one of two other bel13pent years in the study and consideration of these great questions ligerent nations the case would have been dHferent. Let me suppose while the gentleman from Indiana and myself were engaged in the that France and England were at war aml that the privateers of 

courts of our respective States in the settlement of petty disputes either nation had destroyed American ship!'! pursuing a legal and innobetween neighbors. They certainly knew what they were about. cent trade. By the acknowledged laws of nations the merchant own-

• 

~ 

I 
550 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J.ANU.ARY 18, 

ing the ships has a legal right to compensation. All codes of law 

admit that the right exists. There may not be an· adequate remedy. 

The courts of the offending nation may not be\open to alieJJ.S-and 

they m·ver are except by permission of the nation itself. The government of the injured citizen may not have the ability or disposition 

to interfQre with diplomacy or the strong arm of war. But nevertheless, as was said by the Supreme C?nrt of the United States i!l the case of Comegys vs.Vasse, the right eXIsts. And I use the word '' nght" 

in its proper legal sense, not as synonymous with "claim;" for claim 

is as broad as the ingenuity and roguery of the human race, whereas 

right is circumscribed by the fixed and immutable principles of natural justice. And now we can account for the different language used iu describing, in article 1 of the treaty of Washington, the claim made by our Gov:ernment upon Great Britairr for compensation or indemnity for 

the property that was destroyed by the confederate cruisers in a state of war existing between the Confederate States and the Government of. the United States, and the language used in article 12 of that treaty for 

injuries done to citizens of States that "!"ere not in a state of war with 

each other. It would not have been correct legal language to have 

spoken of the A.la.bama claimB as the private claims of individuals. 

And on the other hand, the claims provided for in article 12 were claims arising out of the violation of !)rivate rights of person or property of persons whose. country was not in a state of war with the 

government doing the injury, giving to the citizen injured a right 

to compensation-the remedy to be afforded by his government when 

it saw nt and in the manner its jndgmerit approved. Such private 

claimB have generally been pressed by and upon .our Government as the claims of individuals. For the government can scarcely suffer a material injDrY. which is not represented by a corresponding injury 

to some citizen or domiciled person. And on the other hand an injury 

cannot occur to the person or pro,Perty of a citizen which is not also an i.rtjnry to the -government to which he belongs. . An inspection of 

all the treaties of the United States Government will show that we have made over twenty separate treaties providing for reclamations 

from foreign governments for injuries done to our citizens or their 

property ; and this strikin~ fact will -appear that every one of these 

rtWlamations was for injuries done to our citizens by a nation with 

whom we were then at peace and while we were at peace with all 

the world; and in each and every treaty-and I challenge contradiction-explicit langnage 'was used in regard to such claims, stamping 

them, without exception, as the claims of individuals. I refer to our numerous treaties with Great Britain, Spain, and France, and to our treaties with Denmark, Mexico, China, Texas, Costa Rica, New Grenada, Algiers, Peru, the Two Sicilies, and Venezuela. In all these cases the t•ights of our citizens were illegally interfered with, and our Government took up such rights and prosecuted them as individual.claims 

with success. In such cases it was eminently proper that the Government should regard the fund it received as received for the benefit 

of those exclusively who bad been inju:ted. The right to compensation existing should be recognized and satisfied by our Government. 

Mut,eveo in such a case, as wa-s expressly decided in the English 

courts in the recent important case of Rustomjee t·s. The Queen, (cited 

in the minority report,) the act of distribution is a sovereign act, 

and is only remitted to the f;OUrts for the convenience of the government itself and at its pleasure. 

But, says some ~entleman, if the Government diq not recover upon 

these claims as pnvate claims, upon what ground did it proceed'¥ It 

proceeded upon the general proposition that as between nations all 

the property i:p. the territory of each nation belongs to the nation as a whole. I cannot express this bettel' than. in the language of Vattel, whose doctrine will also be found in Rutherford's Institutes. I 

read from chapter 7, page 164: . · 

Even the property of individual.s is, in the aggregate, tO be considered as the 

property of nations, with respect to otht'r states. It, in some sort, really belongs to her, from the right she has over the property of her citizens, because it conRti- tutes a part of the sum total of her riches and augments her power. She is interested 

in that property b_y her obligation to protect an her members. In short, it can- not be otherwise, smce nations act and treat together as bodies in their quality of 

political societies, and are considered as so many moral persons. All those who 

form a society, a nation being considered by foreign nations as constituting only 900 whcJI.e, one single person-all their wealth together can only be considered as the wealth of that same person. 

This is very clear and needs no further illustration. 

Now, Mr. S!H'aker, because no private claims were submitted to the 

tribunal at Geneva, because no money was awarded to private individuals, either in gross or separately, because it was a question solely 

between the two governments, I say that there is no legal or equitable right to the fund in anybody, and when I speak of legal and 

equitable right I do not use the term in the sense of natural justice 

but as we lawyers understand it. 

! .take it for granted that if .it can be shown that the insurance 

companies have no legal or equitable right to this fund no gentleman on this floor will be willing to allow them to share in a fund that was given us as an indemnity to our fellow-citizens, and was not 

contended for to enrich those who have.already grown rich enough 

out ef their exactions upon shippers and ship-owners by their excess- ive war premiums. 

" But," says some one, " let us send it to the courts. The courts are the only appropriate tribunals." My friend from Pennsylvania 

[Mr. STENGER] made one of the most plausible appeals to this House 

to let this whole questiou go to the courts. He said we were not a proper body to distribute this money. Let us look at the majority 

bill, under which we are asked to refer these queatioll8- to the court: 

Let us see how peculiarly it is worded. It reads as follows : 

That all persons and corporations claiming to be entitledmay go into court ; these insurance companies may go; private citi- zens may go; foreigners and foreign insurance con:Jpanies may go; 

all persons may go before the Court of Claims, and the courtshall render judgment for each claimant who was an actual sufferer by the viola- tion of the laws of neutrality by Great Britain for such an amount aa in their opinion he shall be justly entitled to recover under siwh treaty an.d award accord- ing to the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations, without regM"d to any ruleThat is one thio·gor principleThat is another thingof allowance, exclusion, inclusion, or distribution heretofore adopted by Congress. 

in chapter 459 of the laws of the :Forty-third Congress, or otherwise, or by the tribunal created by said law. 

I cannot understamlwby the majority of the committee in framing 

this bill were anxious to overturn the rules or principles of distribution prescribed in a statutb which has long B"ince expi1·ed and ceased 

to be a law. But I am much more surprised at the proposition to 

exclude any "rule or principle" adopted by the court of five judges 

who have heretofore distn1mted this money by judicial decision. I 

cannot understand why it was necessary to repeal or annul a dead 

law, or to exclude the general propositions of law that might have 

been decided by a court once ~stablisbed for the distribution of this 

very fund. 

I say that that bill is not a fair bUI. It is not impartial. It as- sumes the very question at issue. It does not give an equal chance . to all persons. On the contrary, I say that those who paid large war premiums and those who suffered losses by the exculpated 

cruisers, whose claims I shall hereafter consider, will not have the 

remotest chance. Only the insurance companies, if anybody, would 

have any standing; and they would get it only by the peculiar language and effect of the bill itself. I do not say they could prosecute 

successfully. But I will say this much, that only they could make 

the pretense of a shoWing. 

We received this money to distribute as a nation. The majority assumes that we received it fm; individuals. My friend from New York 

[Mr. POTIER] substantially admitted away the whole case of the ma- jority in his very able and ingenious argument, when he said that we are only under "a moral obligation" to distribute this fund. If the 

insurance companies have any right to this fund we are under a legal 

obligation to let them have it. It is our duty as a legislature just a much as it would be ·the duty of a court to give it to them if their 

claim is founded upon a legal or equitable right. But if only moral 

obligations are in>olved1 we are bound by the general principle of 

justice, and should not snatch the money of sUfferers to bestow it 

upon those who have become rich, in part, at their expense. 

But this majority bill says, "You gentlemen who claim this fund 

may go into a court." What court' A court of the narrowest jurisdiction ; the Court of Claims without equity powers i which would 

and could only act upon the narrow rules of law settling strict right 

among men. And then the bill says to the Court of Claims, "You are instructed to give this fund to those who can show that they are entitled to it under the treaty a11d the atcm·d." Why, sir, the bill assumes the very question in controversy which we are now di ens- sing, that somebody has a right under the award. By the bill the 

Government abandons its right to distribute this money according to our notions of justice and equity;and it says to the court below, because that court is bound by the expre8s or implied instructions 

of the law w hlch-we may pass, " We do not claim this money a belonging to the Government, as belonging to the Treasury ; nor do we desire to distribute it under our sovereign power. We admit that it 

belongs to individuals; that it was awarded to individuals; and you 

will please find out who under the au:ard bas the best right to it." 

This is almost an express instruction to pay only tllose whose claims can be shown to have been included in the award. And under such a law only the insurance companies, as the controversy now stands, would have the ghmw of a chance. 

As I said in the opening of my argument, a proposition to refer to a court appeals strongly to the sympathy of all lawyers. It appeals more strongly to the uninformed or occupied legislator. If anybody 

had a legal or equitable right, as we understand the term, I would 

not only be in favor of letting him go to the courts, but would be 

glad to be rid of the wearisome investigation and debate we have 

had. But the preliminary question for this Honse to decide is whether 

there is a legal or equitable right in any one, because the court cannot enforce moral obligations. The court can only act upon titles. 

And what would be the condition of this controversy and of the 

needy claimants, if after three yeare of litigation under the majority bill the Supreme Conrt should finally decide that under that bill 

nobody had any rights which a court could enforce! We should then 

be where we are now. That I am right in the proposition that a reference to the courts 

would narrow the rules of decision, allow me to make a suggestion. 

Suppose the House should refer this matter to the Court of Claims, 

"with as full power to distribute this fund as Congress may have." 

• 
1879 .. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. ·551 

Does not ~very gentleman see at once that, although that court is 

bound by rules of ·law, yet if it bad conferred upon it, and could re- -ceive, such power, then the chances of aU claimants would be equal; 

.and the controversy would be transferred from this unwieldy 900-Y 

to a smaller number of persons learned in the law. Such a reference 

would not' be 80 objectionable as the present bill, althon~b the dangers of appointing a court, or clothing one already appomted, with 

-such extraordinary powers would be unusual and might be dangerous. 

The appeamnce of the majority bill is that it confers such power, but 

in reality it uoes not. For the instruction to the Court of Claims to 

decide according to "justice, equity, and the law of nations" is the 

unmeaning l~nguage of precedent, and does not abridge or enlarge 

the j nrisdiction or power of that court. It wonld look only for titles, 

and discover them under the ordinary rules. I ·do not think that my 

friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. STENGER] was in earnest when he 

said that if we send this case to the Court of Claims to be decided 

according to equity, that court will act upon the definition of equity 

given by Grotius. Equity has a different meaning in the jurisprudence of the United States and of Great· Bl'itain. It has a welldefined and much narrower meaning in these days. But the gentle- man from Pennsylvania in the very same breath in which he said he was for r.,ferring this question to the courts_ because they were better 

able to investigate and determine it and because they could administer broad equity as well as we, said be was opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Maine; [Mr. FRYE.] 

The question involved in that amendment is whether an insurance 

company should be considered an actual loser unless the sum ·of its 

losses by war risks exceeded the sum of its war premiums received. 

Is that a legal question! Is that a question for a court of equity 'f 

Is that a question upon which a courtof law or equity can give a decision more in consonance with the principles of jn&tice and equity 

than can this body'f I would like to see some attorney pleading in 

the Court of Claims against these insurance companies, if an amendment of this kind defining their rights is not adopted. An insur- ance company comes in for a loss upon the ship Brilliant, for example. 

The company says, "We insured her for $100,000 and we received a premium of $10,000; hence we are actl\al losers and our net loss is 

$90,000." Under the majority bill the case would end here, and the 

insurers of this vessel would come out of court with $90,000. Under 

what rule of law or equity, or what provision of this majority bill, 

wouldthecourthavetherighttosaytotheinsnrancecompany, "Don't 

be so fa-at ; bring in your books ; let us see the amount of the war premiums you received in cases where you suifured no loss; ~nd we will 

offset them against your losses and see whether yon are an actual sufferer." Such a proposition would be scouted. Yet my friend from 

Pennsylvania, who claims that this is a fair bill, that it gives the in- ~nuance companies only an eqnal chance with other people, thinks that we are not eqp.al to the settlement of such a question as this, \I>Dd 

wants•to prevent its determination in the only tribunal that has the 

power to settle it-that is Congress. We are the only body that can .compel an insurance company to make an exhibit of its whole war- premium business and require the deduction of all the war premiums 

from the lo~s alleged to have been suffered, to ascertain the net loss. 

Is that a complicated question of law or equity! Is it not a political or public question Are we unequal to its decision Y. Ought we to give up our opportunity to settle it when we have the power and 

the right to do soY 

Most certain~ not; and we should vote for the amendment. The 

.business in whiCh these companies were engaged involved only the 

l"eceipt and disbmsement of mone~-the receipt o~ premiums and th.e 

payment of losses. When the crmsers began thett damage the busi- ness of assuming war risks began. It involved no additional expense 

to the companies; no new buildings, clerks, or offices ; not even new paper, pens, or ink; but everything proceeded as usuaL They charged 

heavy extra premiums. In doing so they made enormous profits. 

These profits were made in tke war-risk business, and it is only of 

.such profits that the amendment of Mr. FRYE demands an account. 

These profits were ma-de only out of war premiums. Their business was not complicated by the circumstances surrounding a merchant. 

They did not deal in cloths, su~ars, teas, coffees, hardware, or mer- ~handise. They had no general business, outside of the receipt of 

money as premiums, in which to lose or gain, so as to complicate the 

.solution of the question as to what their losses or gains were due. 

And when they present themselves here as actual losers by the pres- ence of confederate cruisers upon the high seas we are compelled to 

say to them, "Let us insp~ct your books. It is a simple question. 

If you paid out more money in war losses than you received in war premiums in all your war-risk business, you are truly a losoc and 

may share in this fund. But if you charged such enormous premiums as to lose nothing, but actually to largely increase your profits, you 

became gainers by the conduct of Great Britain, and we cannot recognize your claim to share in an indemnity fund under the false pretense 

of being' a~tnallosers."' The substitute contains Mr. FRYE's amend- moo~ · 

· Now, Mr. Speaker, the next strong argument that is made by gentle- men on the other side, and insisted upon in the report of the majority 

with great vigor and ability, is the argument drawn from previous precedents. They affirm that all the precedents are in favor of the 

bill of the majority, and they refer us to the treaties with Englund, 

penmark, China, the Two Sicilies, Peru, France, B~:uil, and Spain, 

in all of which a gross sum was awarded to the United States Go7-

ernment for the satisfaction of private claims. And they say, and 

say truly, that in all, the diviBion was remitted to a court or commission in language similar to that used in this bill. I have carefully 

examined all these treaties. 

In each case the reclamation was made for injuries done to our citizens w bile we were at peace. In each treaty the claims were preferred a-a the . private claims of individuals. And in no single case d~s it appear that 

anycontroversyaroseastotheclassesofpersonswhoshouldshareinthe 

money. The questions were chiefly questions of fact, such as we refer 

to the court in the minority substitute. Under such circumstances, our citizens having, as I have already argued at length in the opening, a legal right to compensation, it was proper to send all the parties to a court to determine the extent and value of that right. Their property had been illegally captured or destroyed. The payment of the 

money is stipulated in each treaty to be on their account. And in no case that I have found do t.he peculiar questions arise that surround 

this controversy. . But these precedents are only analogous. They are wanting in the 

chief element that gives rise to the discu.Ssion. In the Geneva fund we have seen that no one has a right, legal or equitable. It was re- covered by the nation on the national title and not for individuals on their private title. It was paid to the nation wiihout committal, and 

its distribution is an act of justice in general and not the mere recognition of existing legal titles. 

I was very mnch int~rested in the able and plausible argument of 

t1ie gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. MANNING] who rested his approval of the majority bill almost entirely upon its accord with the 

precedents. But he had not given the case that thorough examination which it needs, and he must permit me to say that he fell into a very serious and contradictory position. I desire to call attention to 

the gentleman's exact language: 

Precedents, when exactly in point with the case under consideration, are usually held to have a. binding authority, as well to keep the scales of justice even and 

steady as because the question to be decided luis been-solemnly considered :lnd 

determined. And it is therefore a time-honored maxim that when a point has 

been settled by decision it forms a precedent which it is not wise to depart from. unless, in t.he ianguage of Mr. Blackstone, "it is manifestly absurd and unjust." 

It is to be hoped that no step will be taken by the Congress of the United States to lessen the value of that great doctrine of sta1·e decisis which has been so cordi-

~!n ~f~ho:=d.d observed through many _generations by the good and wise 

This is very well and very ably stated. How far the doctrine may 

be applied to a legislative body is uncertain. We know that it is 

rarely applied to political questions; that it does not apply to many 

other questions of a public character; but I will admit its full, persuasive force in all matters which concern merely personal or-private 

rights. I want the House, however, to observe in the :first place that 

the cases are not even analogous, as I have already shown, and I am Sl!re that. the honorable gentleman will himself admit that there is 

another rule of action higher aml better than the one he states, and 

that is the rule that a decision made by a previous Congress in the identical case, if precedents are worth anything, is worth all the_ merely 

analogous decisions of a hundred other cases put together. If the gentleman from Mississippi wants this House to s~and by the precedents, 

to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis, upon the presumption that the 

question has been solemnly considered and decided, I am with Jilin, 

heart and soul, in this case. But why does he advocate a bill which 

repeals every rule and principle settled by a prior solemll law of Congress under which one-half of this money has already been distributed . Why does he ask us to vote for a hill that repeals not only the principles of that law, but the solemn decisions of a court of justice ren- dered under it f If he had given this part of the subject mo~:e careful 

attention he could not have failed to discover that 1!he minority bill 

is based on hi& idea. We have already given a public character by 

law to this fund. Our courts have already decided certain questions 

under that law, and upon the general right. We have already, as·a Government, adopted certain rules for the distribution of this fund, 

and te adopt the bill which the gentleman advocates is to go back 

upon all that Congress and the courts have done in this partieular 

matter; putting the Government of the United States in the extraordinary position of deciding in 1874 all the questions involved in this 

controversy in one way, and reversing its action in every particular in 

four years after, because a powerful lobby may have confused the 

judgment of some of us by the multitude of its pamphlet-s. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. PRIDEMORE in the chair.) The 

gentleman's time has expired. 

Mr. KNOTI'. I ask by unanimous consent that my friend may have 

his time extended sufficiently to enable him to complete his argument. 

The SPEAKER pro ietlpore. That will give the gentleman another 

hour if he desires to occupy it. Is there objection 7 

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. . Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to the House for its 

indulgence. The question will not admit of more brevity. 

To show to the Honse that I am right in saying that all these questions have been once adjudicated by the House, in the language of 

the gentleman from Mis.<Ussippi, I need only refer to the previous history of legislation. The insurance lobby was here just as powerful 

in 1873 and 1874 as now. It has lost nothing by age. All th'e arguments now advanced by them were advanced then. The honorable 

Mr. Evarts appeared before the committee. Able men considered these 

questions in both Houses, and they agreed upon a law, the law of 187~. 
552 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 18, 

In that law they determined, by express provision, that only certain 

classes of claimants should be admitted. They required losers to deduct the insurance money received. They ~id to insurance companies, you may participate, but you m·ust render an account of all 

premiums received in war risks, as against war losses claimed. The 

courts were opened. Losers by the Alabama, Florida, and the Shenandoah came in. 'Vhen their insurance-money was deducted, their 

net loss amounted to only 9,100,000. A few insurance companies came in and proved themselves actual losers to the extent of . 111,000. 

Thus, after providing for all losers of ships and cargoes by the three 

inculpated cruisers, (deducting insurance-money received,) and after 

providing for the payment to insurance companies of all losses they 

had suffered by war risks taken by them upon \essels destroyed. by 

the said inculpated cruisers, (deducting the war premiums received 

by them in their business,) tue hat·e settled 10ith all persons supposed to 

have been inclndeil in tl!e awarcl at Geneva, and we ha\e a large surplus 

of money on hand. This surplus does not arise from overvaluation 

by the tribunal, or the practice of sharp Yankee tricks, but by the 

deduction of the insurance-money received by losers, and the requirement that insurance companies must show net loss, as I have already stated. 

All this the bill of the majority would rip up and unsettle; for the 

concluding piU"agraph of section 1 contemplates the reopening of adjudicated cases when it says: . 

:Bnt all payments heretofore made on any claim by the United States shall be 

deducted from the judgment to be rendered thereon. 

Having settled by the law of 1874 with all persons supposed to 

have been included at Geneva, the question now ricurs, What shall we do with the balance 'f It amounts to nearly 10,000,000. 

One person says, "Keep it in the Treasury." Another speaks for 

internal-improvement schemes; a third proposes a division among 

retiring members of Congress. [Laughter.] Many such plausible 

sohemes are advocated, and have been considered. 

The proposition to turn the money into the Treasury would have 

been more weighty if we had not already paid large sums to persons 

w.ho were not more meritorious than some who are yet unpaid. Having commenced to treat this fund as an indemnity for losers upon the 

high seas, I think we should contiiue in the same line. And, after 

careful consideration, the minority have come to a conclusion which 

has heretofore always met the approbation of the members of this 

branch of the National Legislature whenever the question was presented to it. · In the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Congresses bills 

have readily passed by large majoritiesin this House for the relief of 

war-premium payers and losers by the exculpated cruisers. 

Some person exclaims immediately, "War-premium payments were excluded, as indirect losses, by the interlocutory judgment of the 

tribunal at Geneva in J nne, :t872; " and another says that, upon trial by 

the tribunal, ".Great Britain was not found guilty as to the losses 

suffered by the exculpated cruisers." "Will you," exclaim both, 

"pay people who~ claims were not recognized f" And our bmiliarity with mere legal proceedings prevents a proper consideration of 

these questions in a broad and statesman-like manner. ' 

My answer to all this is found in the argument made in the opening. We preferred this claim as a nation, prosecuted it as a nation, 

recovered it as a nation, and now hold the money as a nation. Our 

purpose in all this, acceded to by Great Britain, was to hold the 

power of distribution in our hands without committal. To facilitate 

this the arbitrators carefully concealed the method by which they 

arrived at the sum total, and they awarded a sum in gross. For a long time before the treatywas made our Government endeavored to 

procure the consent of Gre~t Britain to agree to :fix upon a gross sum in the treaty itself to be paid to us. Failing in that, the provision was made for a gross sum at the discretion of the tribunal, upon :finding Great Britain guilty of neglect in any one particular. 

I can readily understa-nd why claims for enhanced rates of insur- ance were exc.luded.by the tribunal. The payment of war risks did 

not necessarily involve the loss of any national wealth. It was the 

transfer 0./ money from the pocket of John Smith, merchant, or John 

Jones, ship-owner, into the coffers of some American insurance com- p~ny. This might be serious loss to Smith or Jones, but it was equal 

gain to the insurance company, and therefore no net loss to the na- tion, a-s no property was destroyed, but only transferred from one citizen to another. But is Smith or Jones any the less a losed It is 

true their loss could not be recovered upon at Geneva. But when 

tke nation has recovered a gross sum in its own name and upon its 

own title, what rule of international law, or natural law, or justice, or constitutional right, will prevent it from recognizing the losses of 

Smith and Jones, instead of paying the money to the insurance com- p,anies, whose exorbitant rates of insurance drove more vessels from 

rinder the American flag than the confederate cruisers destroyed f 

So with the case of losers by exculpated cruisers. These men were 

not at Geneva. They had no control of the litigation whatever. Their 

counsel and witnesses were not there. As to quite a number of the 

confederate cruisers the Government of the United States o:tfered no testimony whatever, as an inspection of the award itself will show; and 

such was the testimo11y of General Cushing before the subcommittee 

having this matter in charge. How is it possil.lle for a fair-minded 

legislator to say that such a person has had a day in court and failed f 

The Government of the United States was not even prosecuting his ease a.s his agent or atto~ey. It was prosecuting, as we have seen, 

upon its own title, expecting to do ample justice at home with the 

money which it might receive. And that nobody's rights were prejudged at Geneva .or destroyed by the action of the tribunal is frankly 

admitted by the candid gentleman from New York, [Mr. PoTTER,] 

who said in liis argument on this floor a few weeks ago: 

The mode of distribution has not been pooadjudicated. We are here t()-day t() 

say what the mode ought t() be. 

I agree with him entirely upon this proposition, and we part com- pany upon only the narrowest basis. He would not permit the amendment of Mr. FRYE. I would. He believes there are rights. I do not- If I did, he and I woulcl agree entirely. 

1\Ir. HOUSE. May· I ask the gentleman a. question T 

Mr. McUAHON. Yes, sir. . Mr. HOUSE. Have any of the claimants whose claims were ex- cluded from consideration at Geneva been paid 'f ~fr. ~IclflAHON. No, sir. But some not presented have been paid, 

and some presented have been rejected. ~Ir. HOUSE. Were any of their claims presented f 

Mr . .McMAHON. Yes, sir; several were presented, so as to make a. test case, both as to war premiums and exculpated-cruiser losses; and 

the court decided it had no jurisdiction, because the law of Congress 

directed the court what it should consider, and it could not look further than the law. Sectton 11 of the law of 1874 expressly contined 

tbe power of the court to consider claims arising from damage caused . by the cruisers Alabama, Florida, and the Shenandoah after leaving 

Melbourne. 

Is it not a hardship that losers by the exculpated cruisers. are not 

paid f Take the instance of 1\fr. ~Ietcalf, from the State of Ohio. 

His ship was destroyed by the Shenandoah just before going into Melbourne. He receives no pay, but the ship destroyed just after theShenandoah steamed out from' that port has been fully settled for. · My proposition is, and it is the fundamental principle of the minority substitute, that all actual net losses should be paid to all persons 

who sufiered actual damage by the presence of confederate cruiser& 

upon the high seas. I have fully considered the objection made to. 

such payment upon the ground of their rejection at Geneva. I do 

not think it valid. 

I will next consider the proposition: Were they actual losers f 

There can be no doubt that a man whose ship or cargo was destroyeiJJ 

by an ex~;ulpated cruiser was an actual loser to the extent of the valu& 

of his ship or cargo, less the insurance money, if any, which he may 

hawe received. This needs no further argument. 

The question is more difficult as to war-premium payers. It ba 

been arguE!d that they were not. actual losers; that the extra wat~ 

risks were charged up in the price of goods or freight, and that in 

this way their losses were reimbursed out of the public in general. 

This statement is vigorously denieel by persons holding such claims ; 

and their statements would seem to be in accord with the nature and 

situation of American shipping during the war. I think it is fair to say that we did not own one-eighth of the shipping of the world during the time we speak of. And it is equally fair to 

say that from 60 to 70 per cent. of the war-premium claims preferred are put forward by owners of ships. I cannot understand how, either 

in our own or in foreign port.s, e:x.cept in the coastwise trade, one- eighth of the shipping could dictate prices to the remaining seven- eighths, whose competition with each other would settle freight without reference to Atperican bottoms. · One would suppose that American 

shipping would be avoided ; that it would find only casual employment under the American flag; and that its losses from demurrageand loss of freight would far exceed the war premiums it would. have 

to pay. To repay such ship-owners their war premiums, which was the penalty for floating the American flag, would be repayment of 

only a small portion of their losses. If they obtained cargoes, they 

would be compelled to reduce their freights to leave the merchant a, 

margin for the payment of his war premiums; or he might stipulate 

that the ship should pay such premium, which would amount to almost 

the same thing. It is well known that in the Eastern trade our mer- chants do business upon credits, and that the bankers who furnish· 

these require insurance to accompany the 'Lill of lading. What be- came of such merchants as were engaged in the valuable and co. tlY' 

trade of that section of the world, or of ship-owners who wished to. 

carry silks, teas, and such valuable cargoes T 

But we are not left to mere inference upon these questions, con- clusive though it may be. I hold in my hand various documents 

which will throw some light upon this subject. I read to the House. 

frolll an original price-current list issued in Bombay in December,.· 1863, by Dossabhoy, }!erwanjee & Co. Untler the head of "Freights," 

it says: 

Freigh~s to England have been ~enerally active during the period under review, 

but vessels under the American flag have found great difficUlty in obtaining em- ployment except for the country trade; several have been sold and changed their 

flag. The prejudice against this fla~ will, we are afraid, be considerably enhanced 

from the fact of the "Alaba.JJla." bemg in Indian waters. d..bout a month ago sh& was spoken by a British vessel not far from Point de Galle, and it was ·expected she woUld nsit this place, but it seems she has changed her course, having gone. 

intQ China. waters. 

I hold in my hand another original document, the price-current list. 

of Shanghai of January 25, 1864, issued by Augustin Heard & Co~ 

It says: 

The Henry Harbeck and the Algonquin (both American) have been sold for less. 

than £ 6,000 each, but there has been no inquiry for \es els of this nationality since, 

• 
1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECOI-tD-ROUSE. 553 

the news was received of the destruction df the Martaban, under English colors, It is plain that under the treaty it was intended that when a sum_ tformerlythe Texan Star, of Boston,) by the Alabama; that act has much impaired in gross was awarded it was awaried in payment of all the claims. 

the confidence formerly pla-ced in the >alidity of transfers made of American ves- 1·e+"er·red to the tribunal, and not of any special claims. For it is only els to neutral :fiags. • !!' d h lidi f 

I hoid another list issued by Augustin Heard & Co., at Hong Kong, when a board of assessors shoul meet that t e va "ty o any claim. 

could come in question. October 31, 1863, ih which it says under the same heading : .Mr. ELilf. Suppose the arbitrators had decided that Great Britain 

Freights: The!-'e is a decided improvement in the de~and for ton!lage, the in- was not responsible for the ;LCtion of any . of these confetlerate cruis- quiry being restr1cted, howev~r, to vessels under the ;English and e:o~tinental_flags 

to the total exclmion of Amencan botto111$, as the Chinese are unwilhng to ship by era; would Great Britain have paid any money at all 'f 

the latter and some of the local officers decline taking any risk of them. Mr. :Mc~IAHON. I think she would not; she would n.ot for this. 

From one of these documents we discover that twenty-one .A.meri- reason-- can vessels are then lying idle in port. At another date in another Mr. ELAU. Answer the question, please. In that case would theport fifteen American v~~els are idle in port. • . . arbitrators have held Great Britain liable for the payment of any sum I might quote many su;mlar doc~ents, and ~have m m~ possesswn of money f 

many orirrinalletters written durmg that penod confiunmg all that Mr. McMAHON. Gertainly not, for the Government of the United: these doc~ments-tell us. Do they not tell a sad tale for the American States would ha.-e lost its whole case. ship-owner f _And_the person who su~er~d is the man w~ose lo.-e for Mr. ELAM. Then has not the Government of the United StateS> 

his flag and h1s ship would not permit him to transfer 1~ to another lost the case in regard to all the cruisers except the inculpated cruisers t. 

nationality or to part with it altogether. Do not the claims of such Mr. 1\.fcMAJION. Yes; but it was only the Government which lost- men appeal most peculiarly to Olll' sense of justice' this part of ia; case; the claimants have not lost their case, or n.ny 

But I have several other documl3nts which I desire to la,y before part of it. The claimants were not at Geneva in person or by proxy .. the House in this connectior. , I never yet heard of a man being estopped by a proceeding in any court. 

I hold in my hand severi'IJ copies of charter parties entered into when he never had a day, or a pleading, or a lawyer, or a witness in. 

between the agent of the Peruvian go.-erument ayttl the fum of Sturges, court. I think we never ought to apply the doctrine of estoppel in. 

Buchanan & Co., part owners of American ships. After the usual these claims, when the claimants had no possible control over thee 

stipulations for receipt and delivery of cn.rgoes, &c., we :find the fol- proceedings. 

lowing clause: · Now my fundamental proposition is. that we ought to distribute. 

The ship is to furnish a. polics: of insurance as agreed befot:e commencing to loa~l, this fond upon as broad a basis as that on which we mado the original 

co>ering the cargo against war nsk at the rate of $60 per ton m gold, prtnntum patd claim for settlement. What was our claim against Great Britain f I 

btt shi;v • cannot take up time in elaborate argument, but will state it briefly. Thus the American ship-owner paid a war premium not only upon Our case was that the precipitate act of Great Britain in recognizing- _his vessel bot upon the cargo which did not belong to him. ·These the confederacy was the beginning and the end of all the trouble to. were the penalties he paid for his preference for the flag of ~:!.is ~ation which our ships and cargoes were. subjected. From the very begin- or his love for his ship. Should any technical arguments stand m the· ning Secretary Seward and Minister Adams made claim upon Great. way of his reimbursement~ And who are his antagoni£ts f The very Britain in about these words: that Great Britain not only gave- men to whom these premiums were paid. birth to the naval power of the confederate government, but nour- 1 say that a denial of his claim to compensation is not founded in ished, maintained, and equipped it throughout the entire war; and 

justice. He has no technical right&, I admi~ ; bu~ he has powerful we could not but hold Great Britain responsible for every pa1·ticle of 

equitie . And when a gentlen;tan says on th_lS floor that rather t~an the damage that resultecl. This ground we held from the recognition 

<Ti>e it to one of the war-llremnun.menorshtp-owners he would gtve referred to until 1869. Then we changed our position. For a. long. 

ft back to Great Britain, and that we would be dishonored if we did time we insisted that when this case was to be referred to :trbitration. 

not do so I say his sense of honor is entirely too nice and too fine, the question of the. premature recognition should be submitted to the, and wouid be met with aeguffaw on the other side of the Atlantic in- arbitrators. But Great Brit.ain said that was a question s!Ie never- stead of being regarded as a wi~e and statesm~n-like measure. _Since would agree to submit. Finally, in the interest of peace,. (and the: 

the award in the fishery questwn, England IS more than satiSfied. correspondence shows it,) our minister, ~fr. l\fotley, was instructed 

The money paid is not a tithe of the injury· both sections suffered by by Mr. Secretary Fish that in all future negotiations upon the Alathe hostile attitude o.f Great Britain-the North by the destruction of bama claims, t:Qe submission to arbitration of the premature recogits property and the prolongation. o! the ~ar, and the _South by the nition of the Confederate States should not be insisted on, and he 

delusi.-e hope held out of recogmtwn which led her mto the pro- shon1_c1 simply proceed upon-the second point, which waa the conduct. 

longed struggle for separate existenctf.long afte~ her capa.city to. ac- of Great Britain in permitting vessels of war to escape, or equip, or- complish it alone was exhausted. But 1f we received small pecumary refit io her ports. · 

compensation we were well rewarded in the principles settled for But when we waived that first point we did not do so because we future use. If we had succeeded in holcling Great Britain responsible were wrong. We did not so admit. And I appeal to any man on eitherfor the increased cost of the war, fQr the enhanced rates of insurance, side whether our position was not a correct oue. We had a treaty of 

and the transfer of our marine to other flags, all of which claims were peace with Great Britain. Our war was not in the beginning a war ruled out as indirect, tho next war in which England was engaged between two separate contending nations. ·It was. one part of the. 

might haye seen the seas covered with American Alabamas, whose United States trying to fly off from the General Government. It preraYa<TeS would drive the English merchantmen from the ocean, and sented itself in the shape of an intestine commotion, and we had a. who 0

e enormous bills ~gainst this Go>ernment would equal the pres- right to demancl that Great Britain should hold off and not recog;nize 

ent pul.Jlic debt. The trial at Geneva was singular in this respect. the southern people as belligerents until they had manifested a power· 

Each .party waa seeking t? narrow the }~ability of ~he defendant, and upon the high seas and had shown themselves capable of maintain- t~ insure as narrow a bas1s of computatwn as possible. ing themselves. But the recognition of belligerency by Great Britain 

l\lr. ELAM. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him n. question took place precipitately en tm very day that our new minister, :Mr_ 

1\Ir. McMAHON. Certainly. -Adams, arrived in London. That recognition was promslgated before. 

l\fr. ELA.M. Do you propose to pay losses that resulted from the a. battle ;bad been fought, before a vessel of the confederacy was upon. 

action of exculpated cruisers~ the high seas. It was entirely true that the aid and comfort exhib-

:Mr. McMillON. Yes, and upon this basis : that the award at Geneva ited by the English government in unfriendliness to our Government was not an award in favor of any class of claimants as against an- gave birth to the naval power of the confederate government. And 

other; that all that was settled there was how much was to be paid whatever claim we had was the right that one government has to. by Great Britain, n.nd the inoney paid was paid in satisfaction of all charge another wit,h all the consequences of her unfriendly or hostile 

''claims 1·ejerrecl by the treaty." conduct. This wa did; and· our original just claim covered all th(f 

I will refer the gentleman to article 7 of the treaty ~hich provides darnage by confederate cruisers. . that ''in case the tribunal finds that Great Britain has failed to ful- Let us, then, pay out this money to all actual losers to whom we fill any duty or duties as aforesaid, it may, if it think proper, p:ro- would have paid it if Great Britain had agreed to pay us a sum in. 

ceed to award a sum in gross to be paid by Great Britain to the United gross without the intervention of a tribunal of arbitration. 

States for all the claims referred to it.}' l\fr. BRIDGES. I understood the gentleman to say that those who 

Mr. ELAM. Allow mo to ask the gentleman another question. suffered losses by exculpated cruisers are entitled to this money. . Mr. McMAHON. Before I leave this point will the gentleman al- 1\Ir. McMAHON. Y:es, sir; that is, to a portion of it, n~t to all. l 

low me to conclude what I was stating 'I The language is: "For all clo not say entitled as a matter of right; but as persoll8 equally dethe claims 1·ejerred to it, and in such case it shall be so paid." Gen- serving with those who have been paid. 

tlemen might argue that this sentence is a settlement clause; that Mr. BRIDGES. Upon what principle are they entitled to this 

Great Britain when she paid the money wanted to be understood as moneyincontradistinction to everyothercitizenofthe UnitedStatesf 

paying it ilil settlement of all the claims in controversy, and therefore If they thought proper to risk their property upon the high seas, with.-

ihe want-ed a clause in the treaty that the payment was in full and the hope of gain, and with the posSibility of loss, is it not their fault 

:final settlement of ~ll such claims .. Undoubtedly. . . and not the fault of the people of the United States f . But we find that m a separate article of the treaiy,art~cl~ 11, w~ch Mr. Mc~!AHON. Well, you might say the same to the sailors who 

is the settlement clause for the Alabama claims alone, It IS pronded . enlisted in the marine service in the hope of prize-m9ney, and had 

that- their arm or leg shot off; .that they took the ris'li and the Go>ernment. 

When a sum in gross is so paid the high contTactingpartiesag:ee to consider the ought not to give them a pension. The commerce of the country (and 

result of tho tribunal as a full, perfect, and :final settlement of au the claims herein this W!lS thQ able argument made by the gentleman _from Penn~ylreferred to, and further engage that such claims, whether the same may ha>e or vam· n, Mr. Jencke ' in the last House) stands upon a different footmg may not ha>e been presented to the tribunal at Geneva, are settled. -
.554 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE~ J ~"'lr.ARY 18, 

flrom its internal relations. Commerce ought to be fostered; the men who navigate ships ought to be preferred if they stand in the line of 

preferment. If the me1;1 who preferred to let the American flag fly -over their vessels, instead of taking it down, suffered loss thereby, they 

-ought to be preferred-certainly by a gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

.A large portion of our people did consult the instincts of gain aud 

made a formal transfer of their ships to the British or other flags. 'There their ships are. Do we n·ot suffer to-day from the contracted .amount of American shipping 1' Are we not all anxious to have our .shipping extended ~ 

Mr. BRIDGES. We suffer as a nation from contracted commerce. Mr. McMAHON. But the individuals who kept their ships nuder 

'the American flag, and thereby incurred and paitl extra risks, suffered 

_just that much in addition, for they bore all the other burdens a.s well . as you and I. These premiums were their extra loss. 

And now, in conclusion, I desire to refer to an argument of which 

>the most seems to have been made on the other side, considering its un- importance. A great deal is made of it in the report of tie committee. 

It is said it will not do. to establish a now court, and thereupon the 

ideas used in a former report by my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ma-ssachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER,] are quoted as a solemn 

warning: "You will have too many judges; you will have a perpetual court; there will be a lobby about it; there will be this and 

that, and many other extraordinary things." The answer I have to 

make is this: The warnings of that gentleman were disregarded. The 

!Special court was instituted bqr the Congress to which he gave them. 

'The' special court tried cases; it gave general satisfaction; it did not 

-prove perpetual; it disposed, in a reasonable time, of its business, and 

.expired. 

All the evils apprehended failed to occur. And we find at the pres-

-ent time the gentleman from :Massachusetts agreeing to a report to 

establish another special court. Experience has taught him that he was wrong. And he is one of those wise men who know when they 

have made a mistake and do not hesitate to acknowledge it. 

Gentlemen who assail the minority substitute upon this ground 

would do ;well to follow his example. There are no dangers in the 

.establishment of such a court, and many advantages will como from 

it. In the first place the public business will not be Clelayed in tho 

.Court of Claims and the, Supreme Court. In the next place, all the 

.expense of litigation will be paid, under the substitute, out of the 

fund, and not out of the public Treasury, as provided in the majority 

bill. And having settled the principles of distribution by law, there 

will be no danger of the influence of the lobby. The court will deal 

-with questions of fact chiefly; and certainly will, if properly selected, 

be as honest, as capable, and as satisfactory as the court to which the 

:madority incline so decidedly. 

Mr. Speaker, I am under very great obligations to tho gentlemen of ·:the House for the courtesy they have extended to me in this matter. 

I only wish to say in conclusion that tho extended argument that I 

have ma-de has not been made in the interest of any client in the 

.shape or disguise of a constituent. I have none interested either way. 'The only person known to me t;o be interested in my State is the gen· 

tleman to whom I referred awhile ago, who lives hundreds of miles 

from me, and whom I never knew until I came here; and of him I will 

.say that although a citizen of Ohio he is one of recent date; but Ohio 

has no need to be ashamed to own him, for he has shown unusual 

vigor and ability in tbo pursuit and argument •f his interests. The 

.committee has derived much information from his research. But 

beyond the obliga~ion thus far conferred no other exists. 

I have spoken on this question with some earnestness, only be- cause of my convictions of right and of duty. As ~hairman of 

the subcommittee of tho Judiciary Committee, t~ whom this quos· 

tion was referred, it became my duty to give the subject the fullest 

investigation. I have done that conscientiously for nearly a whole 

year. I have given the House tho result of my labors. If it will .enable it to come to.an intelligent conclusion, my whole duty will 

have been performed and my work ended. It has been an interest· 

ing and fascinating study; but I cannot help but admit that I am _glad it is-now done. 

Before taking my seat I wish to say in justice to the gentlemen of 

the committee and to myself, but above all, to the memory of the 

_gentleman whose remains but recently' left this Hall to go to his late 

home in Savannah, followed by the sincere regre_t of us all, that there .are several expressions in the minority report for which I am solely 

accountable, but for which other gentlemen have ·been held responsible on this floor, and for the inadvertent use of which I am sorry. 

'They are expressions which, when my attention was called to them, 

I saw at once were capable of being construed as a reflection 11pon 

the sincerity of members of tho majority of th.o committee in advo-

-cating a bill to send these claims to a court as an impartial bill. 

I want to say here, and I say it of my own accord, as gentlemen of 

-the committee know, and I say it in justice to them and to myself, 

-that whatever gentlemen may have construed into any reflection upon · them wa-s written not only in the heat of discussion, but in the hasty preparation of a long and elaborate report which ha-d to be prepared for the printer within three or four days. The nature of the criticism was not apparent tome until my attention was called toitby the gentlomanfromGeorgiatowhomihave referred. I desire to say, (as !then 

:said to my friend,) that I did not then intend, nor do I now, to reflect 

.apon the honesty or sincerity of the opinion of any member of the 

committee. Too many good lawyers have differed upon this question 

to justify the Sllipicion of any view he may hold. And where so many 

able jurists and distinguished statesmen have ranged themselves on either side, I feel more like distrusting mi. own judgment than callina in question the opinion of others. lli. KNOTT. I demand the previous question on the bill and 

amendments. 

The SPEAKER. Lest tho gentleman frem Kentucky should proceed under a misunderstanding tho Chair deems it proper to say that 

after the previous question is ordered he will not be entitled to speak 

for more than an hour. 

Mr. HALE. I suggest that unanimous consent be now !riven that 

tho gentleman from Kentucky shall have as much time as he chooses 

to occupy . 

Mr. GARFIELD. The main question mic:rht be ordered now, and 

thereafter such time might be allowed to t'he gentleman from Kentricky as he desires. 

The SPEAKER. Tbe request is made that the gentleman from 

Kentucky shall have the time necessary beyond the hour t~ say what 

he may desire on the subject. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. KNOTT. I desire before the vote is taken on the demand for 

tho previous questiol&o prefer a request on behalf of my distinguished 

colleague un the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BuTLER1] who was not here in time to avail himself of his hour and 

who now desires ten or fifteen minutes. 

The SPEAKER. To come out of the time of the gentleman from 

Kentucky' . Mr. KNOTT. The gentleman does not desire to conflict with my 

time. I ask unanimous consent that my colleague may have fifteen 

minutes. 

There was DO objection. 

The previous ques.tion was seconded and the main question oriered. Mr. HALE moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved 

that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to . Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Speaker, having examined this question in th& course of public duty very fully and made two reports upon it as chairman of the committee of which I have the honor now to be a member, I have deemed it my duty to ask a few moments in which to 

state the position of tho question, so far as I understand it comes up in the amendments and in the bill. • By the proper exercise of belligerent rights the confederate authorities fitted out certain steamers to annoy tho commerce of the other 

belligerents of tho Unite(l States. That was legitimate warfare and 

of that no complaint has been or can well be made. But a neutral 

nation who were enjoying an accretion of their commercial marine 

greater than they ev.er had b~oro because of our st~te of controversy, wanting to increase that marine aided in that warfare illegitimately and improperly; and for the injury done to the country and 

for tho wrong done that nation did to us what it never diu before, 

made a public humble apology of regret. That satisfied the national 

honor. They then said, "We will pay to the United States such an amount of pecuniary compe1,1sation as will satisfy the wrongs done to 

the nation." They did not make any private apology_, any apology 

to private citizens, but they made an apology to the nation. They 

made no provision for the payment of any class of private citizens 

wronged, but they made a provision for tho payment of national losses 

which fell more or less directly and indirectly upon private citizens. 

Before this in tho Johnson-Clarendon treaty they had made a proposition to pay private citizens for private losses and that had been 

rejected by the United States Senate as you remember; the nation 

saying," No, we will take nothing less than an apology to the. national 

honor and the paymeB.t of na-tional claims." 

The case went before the tribunal, and that tribunal decided to pay 

only national losses. The question was whether certain indirect losses, 

national losses, should be paid, and this question came very nearly 

wrecking that tribunal, but the good sense of the two countries re- moved this difficulty, and it was finally agreed that national claims, 

and they only, should be submitted. While the matter was in fieri 

before the tribunal it was whispered around that one of tho counsel 

of the United Stat-es was the retained connsel of the insurance com- panies. Whether that rumor was right or wrong it is not necessary 

to consider, but tho effect was to brirrg from the State Department a peremptory order to its counsel and agents not to allow the tribunal 

at Geneva to make any disposition whatever in regard to several 

classes of claims which should be paid; if they gave a judgment for a sum in block ; but if they took into consideration the particular ships as they might do1 then of course they would settle that question as regarded each particular ship that was destroyed or in tho case of 

which loss was incurred. The tribunal came to the conclusion under 

those instructions to award a sum in block that covered everything. 

Now, then, that money, inmy judgment, belongs to the United States 

without any, trust, any legal duty or any claim of any class of citi- zens whatever, to be disposed of precisely as the United States pleases, as a man may do with his own property. But there came a difficulty 

in the mean time, when we had come together after the close of our late unfortunate war, and it was not thought well by the gentlemen 

who had before been in the confederacy, then in tho House and Senate, that the money should remain in the "Treasury of tho _United States, 
-:18.79. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 555 

'because for the reason among others that if it remained there the .southern people would be sharing in the indemnityforwrongswfli.ch 

they ltad committed. Those high-spirited and honorable gentlemen . chose not to be placed in that position. They had committed the 

wrong; we had not called on them for redress; we had got redress from . .another source and therefore it was said in the course of the diseus- e sion why we did not want any part of it. It was a part of the losses . of the war that fell upon you and we will not call upon you to make 

those losses good. But if we have the money in theTreaaurytomake 

them good from any other source that money we do not want. · Now there are three propositions to be taken into consideration: one is to put thi~ money into the Treasury. I do not believe there is a. southern gentleman on this floor who would vote for that proposition after having inflicted that wrong rigbtfy, so far as that war can have any element of right, no one of you wants to have any advantage from the money obtained from our neutral friend for losses due 

to wrongs ~ommitted by him, his aid in that wrong. Therefore the 

proposition to put the money into the Treasury never has commanded, so far as I know, any considerable vote from the gentlemen who represent upon this floor the confedera-cy part of our Union. 

The other proposition is to give it to somebody. All of us: including the learned gentleman who is to close this rlebate, agree that it 

is to be given by the United States to .somebody. To whom shall it 

be given as an indemnityT Nobody has any legal right t,o it. We 

have a right to do anything we please, to make Mississippi levees or ·northern railroads, to give subsidies to lines of ships, if we choose, as we will. · 

Bot what ought to be done with it is to indemnify somebody :who ·rbas lost. 

Now, the next proposition is to give it to the insurance companies or to give them some rights to get into the courts with their claims •.Or set up what they see~ as claims of subrogation, but when they 

have no legal right to it, because the premiums or matter of insur- .ance of the property bad nothing to do with it. 

Now they do not claim any right to it because premiums are the 

ciDother of insurance. The property has nothing to do with insurance. ·Now, these gentlemen of the insurance companies have received nearly ·nine million dollars' worth of premiums during the war, and they have 

paid out only about $5,500,000 of losses; therefore they have· lost 

nothing. That is the condition of things precisely. Not only that, .. but in a bill which I had the honor to draw, and which passed the 

Honse anrl the Senate and became a law, a provision was made that 

if in pursuance of any insurance in any business, upon reckoning up 

that business, it was found that any individual company upon profit -and loss account in its business had sustained a loss, it should be paid; 

and all the insurance companies of the United States that can show 

that they have sustained a loss in the business during the war have _gone before the tribunal before constituted and received their pay. · Now, who is there here that thinks there is any eq ni table claim on the ,partof theim~nrancecompanies f Clearly,none. Now,havetheyany 

legal claim f Their legal claim states itself in this way: they say 

when we insure the Ia w of insurance is that .when we pay the loss on . a. ship; so long as there is a plank in that ship above water just so. long we own that plank as our property, and we are subrogated, having paid the loss, to all the rights of theship'sownerin that property. · True, very true ; there can be no truer principle in the law of insur- .ance than that. · But bow is it when fuere is not a plank above water f Have you .any legal title to anything then T How is it when there was no claim • e~sting on earth that· any private individual could prosecute against . any foreign nation T I suppose no man will dispute this proposition -of public law: that no private citizen can maintain a claim against .a. foreign government as a matter of right for anything done by that .foreign government. He must go through his government if he goes • a.t all. ' 

Therefore there is nothing to be subrogated to; there is nothing to 

which t~eir right, if they have one, can attach. There is nothing 

whatever upon which they can found a legal claim of right. There .has been a decision in England of a case carried to the privy council on a petition of right. If time would permit me I would like to go over that case. But I have stated the effect of it, and my learned 

friend will agree fully that I have given the whole effect. Therefore 

they have no legal claim. 

It is iifficult to see where the equitable claim comes from, for the reasons I have before stated. They made four millions of dollars. 

Are they to make four millions more f 

Now, who are the war-premium men 'f They are a class of men who paid premiums and who have got no return for those premiums. 

They were obliged to pay 10 per cent. insurance in order to get th.eir 

ships across the water in the course of business. So great was this 

burden that many men sold their ships, nominally or actually, to citizens of Great Britain, to be sailed under the British flag. But there were other men who with true patriotism carried on their business . and paid the war premium, and have not received a dollar return in -any way from the insurance companies or from anybody else. 

These were direct losses to their property, unless the answer is true 

which is this : ai that is true, but the merchant anrl the ship-owner · charged the ameunt of his war premium paid into the prices of the goods he sold, and therefore he has collected it back from the whole 

;people. That is a fair argument and is to be .fairly considered. 

Now, what is the fact in regard to that f It could have been done so except for the reason that four-fifths of all tke commerce of the 

United States during the war was carried on in foreign bottoms. 

Now, which fixed tha price of the goods, the four-fifths or the one- fifth f The one-fifth was carried on under war premiums; four-fifths was carried on in foreign bottoms that paid no premi llDlS. It was the four-fifths that fixed the price, and therefore the men who paid war premiums could not charge them back into their goods, and so raise the price of those good~ as to obtain indemnity. So much for 

that. . . . But it was not a question between the merchant who sold the goods 

to the people, but it was a question between the American shipowner, the man. who owned the ships and bad them in the East 

Indies, for instance, and was asking for freight. Here was a ship at 

Hong-Kong, a British ship alongside of an American ship. The British ship had come safe against all war risks, and the man who shipped on her would sell his tea at a profit so far as the war was concerned. If he put his tea on board of an American ship, even if the Ameri- can ship paid the war premium in order to g~t the freight, all that 

he would get back would be the simple cost of the tea; he would loBe' 

all his profit. All our ship-owners had to do business with that burden upon them. It was a direct and positive loss of so many millions 

of dollars. There is about $7,000,000, I think, uncovered by anything 

like•remuneration from the insurance company; seven or eight millions of dollars of absolute loss to the freighter, to the ship-owner, to 

the ship-master, who had to pay this war premiu~ in order to obtain 

his freight. 

Now they come before Congress and say to us, " Here is this sum of money for yon to do with as you see fit. Let us have the opportunity of going before a proper court for its distribution." These men are somewhat indifferent as to whether it shall be the Court of 

Claims or some other court. But they ask that they may be given 

that to which they shall show they are justly entitled. 

Now, you do not want the money in the Treasury. Yon will not 

admit to England that yon cheated her out of six or seven millions more at Geneva than you ought to have had. Yet that is what yon 

will do if you do not give this money to .somebody; and it should 

go to the war-premium men. · Now that is the principle 'of the minority report, which has threa 

times passed this House by an overwhelming vote; twice when this 

House wa~ republican, and once when it was democratic largely, 

much more so than it is now. Therefore there is no party consideration in this matter. 

Then, there is another class of claimants, and those claimants are claimants for losses by what is called the unincnlpated cruisers. 

That i~ under certain new rules of international law which we laid 

down in the treaty of Washington, and which we said should govern us hereafter, as I think wisely, certain cruisers were to be known as exculpated cruisers. I think we shall find trouble with those rules 

whenever we become a neutral nation, as between two belligerents. 

We said we would have certain new rules; we made those new rules. Under those rules, which were narrowing public law, there were certain cruisers which took our property, which could not be held 

liable by the judgment of the tribunal. 

Now, I have no quarrel with the judgment of the tribunal under 

rules which we made in the treaty. But it left unreimbnrsed a portion of our property actually destroyed. Having enough money to cover those claims, the minority of the committee say why should not 

we, whose duty it was to have protected this property on the high 

seas, pay these men who in g~d faith prosecuted their voyages and 

who were captured by the cruisers of the confederacy, as they had a right to cap~ them under the laws of war f But the men who were captured also had a right to be protected by the power o~ the United 

States . The United States, failing in that power of protection, why should we not remunerate these men from this fund so far as it will go f Let us take this fund out of the Treasury to make compensation for private property taken for public uses (although not directly yet in 

faet) by reason of the exigencies of war. This claim, with one other, is the only question growing out of the war that will ever be presented by the North. Being such a claim, the question is whether you of the opposite section will deal with it 

precisely as yQu would desire that your claim should be dealt with by 

us; and if we of this section have done any wrong in t}6at regard, it 

is now your turn to " heap coals of fire upon our heads." 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. KNOTT. I think I can safely affirm, Mr. Speaker, that the 

position I occupy with re~ard to the matt'er under consideration is one of absolute impartiality. I have net a solitary constituent who 

pretends to have any more claim upon any portion o' the sum awarded 

by the tribunal at Geneva than he bas to a diamond mine on the far side of the moon, and I am sure that I have not the slightest scintilla 

of feeling or prejudice for or against any particular claimant or class 

of claimants to any portion of that fund. 'fhe only·solicitnde I have 

in relation to anything in anywise connected with it is, that· simple 

justice may be done, and that such steps may be taken here as will 

insure the speediest practicable distribution of the remainder of the sum now in the hands of the Government among those to whom it 

really belongs, no matter who they may be or by what circumstances 

they may be surrounded. 
I • 

55() CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 18, 

I am therefore under no temptation to discuss with the zeal of an advocate the merits of any claim upon which it may possibly become 

my duty to vote as a judge. All that I desire is that gentlemen who 

have not had an opportunity of investigating the subject as fully and 

carefully as I have myself may have a distinct understanding of the 

propositions 11pon which they are now called upon to vote, and may 

lte sufficiently advised as to the facts which are necessary to be understood in order to vote intelligently thereon. Those facts are very few 

and simpl~t. sir, and if the House will favor me with its patient attention while 1 attempt to eliminate them from the mass of irrelevant 

and superfluous matter which has been brought into this discussion, 

I will endeavor to requite that distinguished courtesy by such brevity 

and clearness as I shall be able to command; though to those who 

had the ~ood fortune to hear or who have read the brief but singularly luCld argument of the gentleman from Indiana [l\1r. BICKNELL] 

it may perhaps seem like a. work of supererogation ou my part to 

undertake to do so at all. 

I deem it entirely unnecessary, however, that I should enter in~o 

anything like a detailed sta~ment of the familiar facts which g_ave 

rise to the treaty of 'Yashmgton, concluded between the Umted 

States and Great Britain on the 8th of May, 1871. Nor will I abuse 

the patience of the House by referring to any transaction of the 

tribunal of arbitration organized under the provisions of that treaty 

which does not have an immediate bearing upon the questions Uilder 

consideration. It is sufficient, perhaps, to state in general terms 

that according to the stipulations of the treaty it was made the duty 

of the tribunal thu\3 organized to carefully and impartially examine 

and decide all questions submitted to it by the two governments re- spectively, and especially to determine whether Great Britain by any 

act or omission had failed to fulfill any duty prescribed in three rules 

which had been agreed upon in the treaty or recognized by the principles of international law not inconsistent therewith; and, if so, to 

certify that fact and the particular vessel or vessels with respect to ' 

which such dereliction had occurred. And in case the tribunal should 

find that Great Britain had been thus derelict it was 'authorized, if it 

should think proper, to award a sum in gross to be paid by Great 

Britain tQ the. Uruted States, in satisfaction of the da.mages resulting 

from sucn dereliction. 

The tribunal contemplated in the treaty' having met and organized 

at the place agreed upon, the United States pres~nted their "case," 

claiming that Great Britain should be held responsible for the transactions of the Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Nashville, Tallahassee, Tuscaloosa, Chickamauga, Shanandoah, Retribution, and some other vessels 

perhaps whose names I cannot at this moment recall, and exhibiting a detailed statement of all the claims for losses of vessels and cargoes 

captured and destroyed by those vessels, which had come to the 

knowledge of o.ur Government; showing the cruiser which did ~he 

injury in ea-ch instance, the vessels destroyed, the names of the clrumants of such vessels and cargo~s, the amount of insurance· on each, 

and all other facts necessary to enable the tribunal to determine the 

amount of injury committed by each cruiser and who were the sufferers thereby. · In addition to these specific individual claims for direct losses, the 

United States demanded indemnity for losses occasioned by the pres- ence of the confederate cruisers on the high seas, and resulting from 

the transfer of a large portion of. the American commercial marine 

to the British flag; the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war, 

and the payment of enhanced rates of insurance pepularly known as "war premi.ums." This demand, however, was instantly met by such a decided and, I may say, indignant opposition on the part of Great 

Britain. that all prospect of a settlement of the differences between 

the two governments seemed utterly ont of the question if such claims were to be insisted upon. The tribunal therefore aunounced: 

That after the most careful perusal of all that had been urged on tho part of the 

United States in respect to these claims, the:y had arri>ed, individually and collectively, at the conc1nsion that these claims did not constitnte, upon principles of 

international law applicable to such cases: good foundation for an award of com- pensation, or computation of damages between nations, and should upon such 

principlesThat is, principles of international lawbe wholly excluded from the consideration ol th0 tribunal in making its award, even if there bad been no disagreement between the two governments as to the 

competency of the tribunal to decide thereon. 

This conclusion, which I have read in the very language of the 

arbitrators themselves, on being communicated to the President of 

the United tates met his entire approbation, and he accordingly 

authorized the announcement to be made to the tribunal thap all 

claims for indemnity on account of the transfer of American commer- cial marine to the British flag, the addition of a large sum to the cost 

of the war,andthepaymentof "warpremiums" would benofurther 

insisted upon by the United States, but mi~ht be wholly excluded 

from their consid'eration by the arbitrators m making their award; 

and upon this announcement being made the tribunal directed it to 

beenteredasits solemnjudgment that such claims should from thenceforth be wholly excluded from its consideration, so they really cutno more :figure in the subsequent proceedings or conclusions of the tribunal than if they had never been mentioned, or even thought of. 

Tho truth is, sir, that these claims were not presented with any ex- pectation or desire on the part of the executive department of our Go-vernment that a pecuniary award would be made upon any such 

grounds. They were exhibited simply and solely with the view of 

elicitin~ the opinion of the tribunal upon a question of international 

law. of tar more importance to the United States as a neutral ;power 

than all the gold in the British exchequer. In proof of this I need 

only refer to the following telegram from Mr. Secretary Fish in reply 

to Mr. Bancroft Davjs, the agent of the United States at Geneva, of 

date June 22, 1872 : · 

I have laid your telegram before the> President, who directs me to say tbat he 

accepts the declaration of the tribunal as its judgment upon a question of public law which he bad felt that the interest of both governments reqttired should be 

decided, and for the determination of which he hiid felt it important to present tb0 

claims referred to for the purpose of taking the opinion of the tribunal. Tkis is 

the attainment of an end which this GO'Vernment had, in view in the putting forth of those claims. We had, no desire for a pecunimy award, but desired an expresswn by 

the tribunal as to the li®iZity of neutrals for claims of that charQ4:ter. Tho President, 

therefore, further accepts the opinion and advice of the counsel a.s set forth abo>e, 

and authorizes the announcement to the tribunal that he accepts their declaration as determinative of their judgment upon the important question of public law upon which he felt it his duty t~ seek the expression of their opinion, and that in accord- ance with such judgment and opinion, from henceforth, he regards the claims set forth in the case presented on the part of the United States for loss in tho tran fer 

of the American commercial marine to the British flaa, the enltancccl payments of 

insurance, and the prolongation of the war, and the a:ldition of a large sum to the oost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion as adjudicated and disposed of; and that, consequently, they will not be further insist~d upon before the trL- bunal by the United States, but are henceforth excluded from its consideration by the tribunal in maJ..--ing its award.-Papers, vol. 2, p. 579. 

It is unnecessary that I ·should linger upon the details of the proceedings of the tribunal after its unanimous judgment excluding theseclaims finally and forever from its consideration, nor need I pause 

hereto show that that judgment w~s of infinitely greater consequence 

to the United States than ten times the sum subsequently awarded 

would have been. Suffice it. to say, sir, the arbitrators finally-· determined that the imlemnity to which the United States were entitled was limited to losses resulting directly fr~m the destruction of ves- sels and their cargoes by the Alabama, the Florida, and their tenders, 

and the Shenandoah after her departure from the port of Melbourne on the 18th of February1 1865; and inasmuch as the reference of the 

subject of compensation to another tribunal composed of members of 

different nationalities, as contemplated in article 10 of the treaty, for 

further discussion and deliberation, might lead to disagreements, difli:. 

culties, delays, and unnecessary expenses, if not to ultimate injustice 

and wrong, and in view of the fact that they had before them the 

necessary data to enable them to approximate such gross sum as would 

be a full compensation for the injuries for which they had determined 

that Great Britain should be held liable, they proceeded, in exercise of 

the discretion vested in them, to award ''the sum of $15,500,000 in gold as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for 

the satisfaction of all claims referred to the consideration of the tribunal! conformable to the provisions of article 7 of the treaty of 

Washington." . That I ha>e thus far, Mr. Speaker, presented a candid a.nd impartial statement of the facts material to be understood and borne in 

mind in this discussion cannot be denied by any one who has made a careful and dispassionate examination of the whole subject, as I have 

endeavored to do myself; and from that simple recital, sir, it must 

be obvious that the Georgia, the Nashville, the Retribution, and other 

confederate cruisers might have swept our entire commercial marine 

·from the face of the seas; every merchant and ship-owner in tlie land mi~hthave been rendered bankrupt by the payment of enhanced rates 

of lllSurauce, yet had the Florida and the Alabama. or their tenders never captured or destroyed a vessel, and had the Shenandoah never entered or never left the pert of Melbourne, all the learning and eloquence which have been expenued in this debate in behalf of those 

who paid war premiums or those who suffered directly from the operations of the so-called exculpated cruisers would have been lost for- ever to this House and to the world, simply because it is absolutely 

certain that the United States would never have received a solitary 

cent to be distributed to them or anybody else. On the other hand, 

it is equally obvious to every unprejudiced mind that the sum awarded was intended simply and solely as a compensation for losses occa- sioned directly by the operations of the three inculpated cruisersthe Florida, the AlabamaJ and their tenders, and the Shenandoah 

after she left Melbourne-and for no otheJ;s whatever. 

That such was the ultimate conclusion of the Forty-third Congress, 

whatever may be asserted to the contrary, is manifest from tlie provisions of the act of June 24, 1874, creating the special tribunal known as the ''court of commissioners of Alabama claims," by which the 

jurisdiction of that court was expressly limited to claillijJ resu!ting 

directly from the destruction of vessels and cargoes by ~ese three 

cruisers and their tenders, as gentlemen will see by referring to the act. 

By the court organized in pursuance of the provisions of that act, 

circumscribed by the limitations and restrictionB therein contained, 

claims were allowed and have been paid out of the gross sum awarded 

by the Geneva tribunal, amounting to something over $6,0001000, l~aving a balance of near $10,000,000 yet in the hands of the Government 

and undisposed of. 

To that remainder, sir, there appear to be several classes of claimants : first, the owners of vessels and cargoes destroyed by the Alabama the Florida, and their tenders, and the Shenandoah after he 

left Melbourll.e, who claim that they have not been fully remunerated 

under tbe act of June 24, 1874; second, the owners of vessels and 

cargoes destroyed by the Georgia, Sumter, Nashville, Tallahassee, 

Chickamauga, Sallie, Jefferson Bavis, Music, Boston, V. H. JQy, and 

the Shenandoah before she arrived at Melbourne, familiarly known 
1879 . OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE~ 557 

. as the ''exculpated cruisers ;" third, t hose who t!laim to have paid 

enhanced rates of insurance, commonly known as ·"war ,premitllllS," 

in consequence of the presence of the confederate cruisers on the high 

seas; and, fourth, the insurers, who claim to have paid the owners of certain vessels destroyed by the inculpated cruisers the losses thns :sustained by them, and ask to be subrogated to the rights of the in- . sured to the extent of the losses so paid. · Now, sir, with these facts clearly and constantly in view, gentle- men may proceed to consider intelligently the two propositions now h efore the House. The op.e presented by the substitute proposed by 

the min~rity of the Committee on the Judiciary is that Congress shall -assume a function belonging properly to the judicial department of 

the Government, and solemnly adjudge that the remainder of tbis 

fund shall bedistributedamongthose embraced in the first three classes I have enumerated, notwit.hstanding the minority themselves say, us I will presently show, that none of those claimants have a. legal or equitable right to a solitary cent of it, and that those belonging to . the :fourth class shall receive nothing at all, and that a board of audit 

:ahall be 6rganized to carry out that deocee. 011 the other hand the bill reported by the committee proposes to 

make no discrimination among these parties whatever. It does not 

undertake to determine the title, or to decide the intricat.e questions .of fact, or the delicate principles of law involved in favor of or against 

any one, but proposes to gi >e every claimant to any portion of this 

fnud, no matter to which class he may belong, or what the nature of 

his claim may e, a full, fair, and equal chance to manifest bis right 

by regular proceedings in one of the established courts of the coun- try, with the privilege secured to the Go~ernment, as well as the claim- .ant, of appealing i;o the highest tribunal known to our Constitution 

and laws, in the evQnt of a supposed injustice or mistake. 

Such, sir, is the pith and substance of the two conflicting propo- .sitions between which this House is now called upon to choose. The 

-one-to use the mildest terms-a mere act of congressional grace; the 

..other, of impartial, even-handed justice. The one presenting in their 

1llost odioUB forms all the most objectionable features of" olasslegisllation," as dangerous in practice as it is indefensible in principle; the 

..other a fulfillment of the sacred guarantee in our bill of rights that no person, high ·or low, rich or poor, shall be deprived of his property 

without due process of law-the most priceless, sir, of all the crown jewels that glitter in the diadem of American liberty. Certainly, 

sir, a graver or a more interesting question could scarcely be presented for the serious consideration of this honorable body, involving, as it does, not only the disposition to be made of millions of dollars, 

uut the integrity of the American Government, and the private rights 

.of a large number of American citizens, all equally entitled to justice ~ncl protection under the broad regis of the American Constitution. 

Let us therefore examine the merits .claimed for these propositions 

.d"cspectively through the calm, clear medium of unprejudiced, dispa sionate reason. . . The plan proposed in the substitute -offered by the minority, "Sir, is 

.obnoxious to many and, to my mind, insuperable objections. It 

bristles all over with difficulties. We are met at the very threshold 

by a grave and important question ~ to the nature of the fund itself .upon which the most enlightened legal minds in the country are .<J.ivided. Here we find the minority of the Committee on the Judi- ciary of this House boldly and confidently asserting that it belongs 

oabsolutely to the United States in their corporate capacity, discharged .of every featm:e and attribute of a trust, while on the other hand 

:there are those, endowed withle ability, and equipped with less learnlug perhaps, yet who, after as much laborious and impartial research, .as honestly believe that the Government holds it in the capacity of .a trustee for certain persons to whom it legally and justly belongs. 

The gentlemen of the minority contend with great zeal and ability 

that Congress has an unlimited discretion with regard to it and inay 

give it away to whomsoever it may see proper, while there are others 'who maintain that the Government holds it under a moral obligation 

to provide for its speedy distribution among those upon whose losses 

1t was assessed, for whose indemnity it was intended, and to whom it 

really be1ongs according to +,be broad principles of natural justice and .enlightened equity. Yet, sir, permit me to ask how many gentlemen 

u.pon this floor have found the time, amid the multitude of other .duties demanding their attention, to explore this question in all its 

intricacies with such care as to enable them to form an intelligent 

and independent opinion of their own with regard to it 'I 

The majority of the committee, sir, conscious of their own liability 

to en, but without presuming to challenge the infallibility of their 

learned colleagues of the minority, have not asked the Honse to adopt 

their opinion upon this great underlying question or to be influenced 

by it in any manner whatever. They did not undertake to decide it 

themselves nor do they ~k you to decide it. On the contrary, they ·ba-.e sought, by the bill which they have reported, to r13lieve the 

House entirely ef that onerous and disagreeable duty, by remitting 

the whole subject to a forum to whicq it properly belongs and where ·it can be investigated with that deliberation and deterrn.iBed with 

that impartiality and precision which its importance demands. 

But, sir, the minority not only ask the House to assume that their ·opinion as to the nature of this fund is the correct one, that is, that it 

belongs absolutely to the United States, but that it should be distrib- •nted ~ong certain parties who, they sa.y themselves, have no legal ~r equitable right to any portion of it whatever. To show that I do 

not state this startling and anomalous position too strongly, I beg 

leave to call attention to the exact language employed by them in 

their printed views, at page 2.6. They say : 

The undersi!rned are of the opinion that the fund in question is an i nde-mnittJ 

fund. They btllieve it was awarded to us as a nation. Tbey believe that no per- son or corporation has a legal or equitable right to any portion of it. They regard it as a fund for actual sufterers by the conduct of Great Britain . 

There, sir, is tl1e most remarkable creed to be found in n.n y language ancient or modern, living or dead. A creed expressed in four 

briM, crisp sentences, in which there are two distinct and sharply 

defined changes of faith. .First it is an indemnity fund. Then it is a fund to whic4 no person or corporation has any legal or equitable 

right whatever. And then it changes again to a fund for the actual 

suft'erers by the conduct of Great 'Britain. And then again those 

actual sufferers have no legal or equitable right to any portion of it. 

Can such things be, And overcome us like a summer's cloud, Without our special wonder i 

I once heard of a man ;wh(' changed front so often and so quickly 

that it was impossible to tell wheth~r he wore his breastpin in his 

shirt bosom or between his shoulder-blades, but I never believed it, 

sir, until I read this rapirl succession of inconsistent conclusions, following e!tch other like the ever-varying hues of the aurora borealis, 

Which :flit ere you can point the plllce. 

Why, sir, old Polonius himself could scarcely have changed his 

opinions with such celerity. · "Do you see yonder cloud, that~s almost in shape of a · camel '? " 

demands the melancholy Dane. "By the mass," exclaims the garrulous old chamberlain "and 'tis like a camel indeed." ":i\Iethinks, 

it is like a weasel," adds the prince. "It is backed like a weasel," 

admits the cunning old courtier. "Or, like a whale," suggests Hamlet. "Very like a whale," echoes the complaisant old sycophant. 

But, sir, the language I hp.ve read :from the printed "views" of the 

minority was not one of the accidental inaccuracies of a hurried or ill-consid~red debate. It was conceived in the calm deliberation of 

the closet by a cool brain and penned by a steady hand. It was intended and has been harped upon as the key-note of the entire argument in favor of the substitute offered · by the minority. I propose, 

therefore, to analyze it a little more narrowly. 

I will first state, however, what will be admitted -as a self-evident 

truth by every gentleman on this floor, lawyer or layman1 except perhaps the advocates of the substitute proposed by the mmority, and 

that is that this fund eitller belongs to the United States or it does 

not. If it belongs absolutely to the United States, as the minority 

assert, they are correct in saying that ~'no person or corporation has 

any legal or equitable right to any portion of it,'' for no person can have a legal or equitable ri~ht to tl1at which belongs absolutely to 

another; or, if he can, our laws against trespass, embezzlement, larceny, and highway robbery are not only superfluous but unjust and 

despotic. It~ on the other hand, this fund does not belong to the 

United States, the Government cannot withhold it from the rightful 

owner, no matter who that owner may be, without violating the most 

familiar injunction of the decalogue as well as the plainest provision 

in our bill of rights: 

Now, sir, if this fund does really belong absolutely to the United 

States, and no person or corporation has a legal or equit-able right to 

any portion of it, as the minority so broadly and boldly assert, I would 

like to inquire by what right any portion of it can be claimed for one who has paid a ''war premium" upon bis vessel or car~o, or who 

may·have had his property destroyed by a confederate crmser either 

"inculpated" or "exculpated T" In what code of law or under what 

system of equity have the g~ntlemen found this new and anomalous 

principle which authoriz.es a man to claim that to which he has no right 

either in law or equity, but which belongs. absolutely to another' The 

Pilgrim Fathers I believe toek possession of this continent in the name . of the Lord, upon the ground that "the earth.was the Lord's and the 

fullness·tbereof." They -only proposed to occupy it until the Lord 

should come along and demand his property. But it is not pretended 

that these claimants, who have no right of their own, can demand 

this fund even as trustees of the Lord. Why, then, should it be claimed 

fer them at-all f They may beg it aa an alms, I grant you, but they can never demand it as a. right. 

And this, sir, when the naked truth is told, is after all the real 

grounds upon which the substitute is based. The gentlemen who propose it say, in effect: "It is true that this fund belongs absolutely to 

the United States; it is true that those who paid war premiums or suffered by the acts of the 'exculpated cruisers' have no legal or equitabl~ right to any portion of it, yet Congress has an unlimited 

discretion with regard to it and can do whatsoever it pleases with the . money. Let us therefore give it to these claimants • for s.weet charity's sake.'" But, sir, I most earnestly and emphatically deny that 

Congress has any such discretion, either under the Constitution or in 

good morals. Congress may violate the Constitution, it is true, as I 

fear it too frequently does, by appropriating the public moneys to 

purposes unauthorized or forbidden by the fundamental law of the 

land. Ay, sir, it may do even more than this. It may outrage every 

principle of commonjustice, and trample in the dust the plainest man- dates of morality by withholding money which JDay be in the hands 

of the Government from iis rightful owners; or, w~'lot is more repre- hensible still, it may direct tha payment of such money to those who 
558 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 18,.. 

have no legal or equitable right to any portion of it. · Yes, sir, it may 

do all this, and more, by dint of mere brute power. But if my learned 

colleague from Ohio, [Mr._ McMAHoN,] who drafted this substitute, 

and who has advocated its adoption with such ingenuity and zeal, 

had studied the Constitution of his country with half the assiduity 

he seems to have devoted to the case of Rustomjee against the Queen 

of England, or the opinions of Mr. Gladstone, he would have discovered that this Government was instituted " to establish justice," 

and not to dispense gratuities. He would have found that Congress 

has the power "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 

and general welfare of the United States," but no provision anywhere 

authorizing it to peddle favors or dole out charities. 

But, sir, suppose we admit, for the sake of the argilment, that the 

gentlemen are correct. Suppose we admit that there is no limitation, 

either moral or legal, upon congressional discretion with regard to 

this fund. Suppose we admit that Congress is the mere hospital for · crippled fortunes the proposition and the argument of the gentleman 

would make it. Suppose we admit that the public money may be 

distributed around ex gratia among those who have no legal or equitable right to any portion of it; that it may be dispensed in tender 

charity to the pleading pensioners. upon public pity provided for in ·the substitute. Suppose we grant all this, are there not other and 

equally as meritorious objects of governmental bounty appealing 

fully as justly, if not so piteously; to congressional compassion Y If 

this money belongs absolutely to the United States, if it is true, as the gentlemen oof th6 minority assert, that none of these claimants 

have any legal or equitable right to any portion of it, why give it to 

them at alit Or, if it must be given away, why not use it in the Arection and maintenance of homes for the thousands of maimed and 

needy veterans, who, with nothing to shield them from the pitiless 

blasts of poverty and want, are slowly dragging their mutilated and 

hungry forms toward the more hospitable shelter of the tomb Y Why 

not dedicate it to the education of the myriads of poverty-stricken 

orphans whose fathers sleep their last long sleep in the unmarked 

graves of the far-off battle-field f True they have "no legal nor equitable right to any portion of it;" but if the minority are correct, 

neither bas the merchant prince who paid war premiums to protect 

his wealth, nor the ship-owner whose vessel, sharing the common cas- ualties of public war, was destroyed by the confederate cruisers Y 

When these inquiries are answered satisfactorily, it will be time 

enough for this House to consider whether it will prefer charity to 

justice. "Ah, but," say the minority, "this is an indemnity fund." Indeed! 

An indemnity fund out of which ne one bas a legal or equitable right 

to claim indemnity! That is very strange. But pray, sir, if this is an indemnity :fupd, who were int.ended to be indemnified by it f Upon 

what losses was it computed, and forwbos~ compensation was it paid f 

Who here is prepared to answer these questions as a judge under his ~ht . Tbewar-premiumclaimantsays: "!tis mine. In consequence of the 

presence of the confederate·cruisers upon the high seas I chose to pay sever~l thousand dollars more tkan I would otherwise have been 

obliged to pp,y rather than bear the risk of lpsing the entire value of 

my ship and cargo. It was therefore intended to indemnify me, notwithstanding my loss was totally excluded from all consideration, and 

not taken into the account at all when the sum was computed by the 

arbitrators."· The pwner of a vessel destroyed by one of the exculpated cruisers 

says : ''It was intended to imlemnify me, although Great Britain was held in no wise responsible te me or any one else for the acts oi. the 

cruiser by which my property was committed to the flames or sent to 

the bottQm of the ocean; " w bile the nnderwri ter says: " I contracted 

in good faith with the owners of certain vessels and cargoes that in 

consi<leration of certain sums paid me I would pay them certain sums in case their vessels and cargoes should be lost or destroyed, with the understandin~, however, that to the extent of the sums paid by me whatever mignt be recovered from or on account of the wreck should 

be mine. Those vessels and cargoes were destroyed by the Alabama, 

the Florida, and the Shenandoah after she left Melbourne. I paid 

those owners every cent I agreed to pay. them. What would otherwise have been their losses became my own. The GovernD}ent invited me to present my claim and undertook to collect it for me. I did so, 

and the Government wa.s successful in its demand upon Great Britain. 

To that extent, therefore, this fund should be mine." 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask in all seriousness, how many of the gentle- men I see around me are willing to say that these conflicting claims 

should- not be settled one way or the other, finally and forever f Yet 

how many of them can truly and conscientiously say that they are prepared to decide upon them with the accura~y, impartiality, and· justice with which they would have the matter determined if they 

stood her& in the attitude of any honest claimant to any portion of 

this fund, n-o matter to which class be may belong f 

The gentleman from Maine [Mr. FRYE] may think that he is prepared to do so; for be told us in the •ery able and eloquent remarks 

he submitted upon this subj'ect some time ago that he had made it 

the subject of profoundest study for the last six years or more; but 

is he quite certain, sir, that be can poise the scales of justice in this 

instance with ·a perfectly steady and even band f Is be sure that be 

could <lecide between the conflicting interests involved in this matter as coolly; cahnly, and dispassionately as be could if his own constituents were not ~lamoring for several millions of this very money!' 

Ia he satisfied that notwithstanding all his eloquent vituperation and 

vociferous denunciation of the insurance companies he can mete out. 

to them their full measure of impartial justice t Does be. think that 

be could pass upon their claims ~th that degree of judicial fairness 

that he W6uld ask of a judge or juror in a case in which be himself 

had a direct personal or pecuniary interest Y He may be capable of 

doing so, and I am sure he thinks he is, or he would be the very last man on this floor to undertake it; for a long and intimate acquaint- ance with him bas satisfied me that he is as honest a gentleman as breathes. But who of us ha.s devoted six hours to the earnest, can- did investigation of this subject, much less six long years of laborious 

study as be bas 'i 

Sir, I am sadly mistaken in the character of the materials of which 

this honorable body is composed if there is a solitary gentleman on this floor who would take it upon himself to determine a dispute between two conflicting claimants to the paltry sum of .10 unless he was fully advised, by competent evidence, of all the material facts,. anft. felt certain that he fully comprehended the principles of law in-.... volved in the controversy. No, sir, there is not a gentleman in t~ 

House who would not positively and peremptorily refuse to decide a controversy involving the pitiful sum of ten sb,illings simply upon 

hearsay testimony or the mere o:einion of a heated advocate. Yet,. 

sir, here is a sum amounting to $10,000,000, ~nvolving the property 

rights of a large number of American citizens and the honor of theGovernment itself, which this House is actually asked to guess off; 

for how many gentlemen here, who are to assume the functions of 

,judges if this substitute shall pass, have toiled through the twelve or fifteen ponderous volumes of· documents which relate to this subject 

in order to acquaint themselves with the facta in controversy T How 

many have made a critical analysis of the variotm legal questions involved, so as to be able to announce an intelligent opinion upon tbem7 independent of the mere representations of others 7 How many of us have studied the opinions of Sir William E. Gladstone as carefully 

and diligently as my learned colleague from Ohio, (Mr. McMAHON !J 

Sir, I. ask gentlemen if this request to thus determine the intricate 

questions of fact and the del:':icate and important principles of law ~volved in this matter is not rather too great a demand upon their 

good nature and complaisance 1' 

But, sir, it has been contended with singular earnestness and zeal 

that the claims embraced in the substitute should be paid out of this. 

fund, notwiths~nding they were excluded from all consideration by 

the arbitrators in making their award, simply because the Government presented them and declined to commit itself at Geneva as tothe "nwdc~' in which the gross sum should be distributed. I will not 

pause here, sir, to discuss what was meant by that wortl"modc," as used by Mr. Secretary Fish, or to show that no such committal was ever asked. I will not even say that such a proposition is an absurdity. 

But if I should assert here that, in case a guardian of five differ.ent. 

wards should bring a suit against a single defendant in favor of each 

of them, recover a judgment in one of the cases and be nonsuited in t~e other four, a court of equity should compel him to distribute the am~unt recovered among the four who were non suited: and give nothing to the one for whom the judgment was obtained, I should fearthat the House would entertain some doubt either of my sanity or my 

sincerity. · But admitting this to be correct, it is a matter of profound regret~ 

sir, that the gentlemen, in their zeal for those who paid enhanced 

rates of insurance, or whose property was destroyed by the" exculpated cruisers," totally forgot to make any provision whatever forthe losses of those who were forced-sometimes, I am told, at immense 

sacrifices-to transfer their vessels to foreign flags in order to prevent 

their capture and destruction by the confederate· cruisers; for, sir,.. 

it must be remembered that the very first demand made by our Government in the class of indirect claims was indemnity for losses re- sulting from the transfer of a large portion of the American commer- cial marine to the British flag, and that this claim was excluded 

along with and upon precisely the same grounds that the claim for -w.ar premiums was. Is it not a little singular, therefore, that thilil classof sufferers should have been so entirely overlooked by the gentlemen 

of the minority in preparing their substitute f Yet why should any 

discrimination have been made against them T 

This question becomes the more perplexing, sir, the more we reflect;. 

upon the fact that at the beginning of the war over three-fourths. of our carrying trade was carried on upon American bottoms, while 

at the close of the war o\er three-fourths of it was carried on upon 

foreign bottoms; and especially when we remember that in some instances, when the American ship-owner happened to be caught out;. 

where it was impossible for him to invoke the protection of the un- - godly underwriter, he was compelled to sell his vessel to some British· or other foreign purchaser a.t perhaps one-fourth of its actual. value or take the chances of going to the bottom of the ocean before 

be could reach home. The question will recur, then, why the gentlemen have so totally neglected this class and thought only of the 

war-premium claimants who are not a particle more meritorious Y' 

Why, they have left it to be said ef themBelves with respect to these 

two classes of claimants," Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,'r 

notwithstanding their claims upon Government bounty stand on such an exact parity. 

But again, sir, if it is true, as the g~ntlemen so broadlY. assert, that: 

. 
1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 55!J 

this money belongs· .absolutely to the United States, discharged of 

every feature and attribute of a trust, it is as much the property of one citizen as another; and it cannot be forgotten, sir, that the pres- ence gf the confederate ·cruisers upon the high seas added ten, ay 

twenty, times the amount of this entire award to the cost of the war, 

9xpenses for which we are still in debt and for which the people of 

Ohio and Kentucky in common with those of every other State in the 

Union are still taxed, and likely to be taxed nntil the present generation, insurers and insured, war-premium claimants and all, shall 

have mingle(']. in common dust. It will be remembered too, sir, that our Government presented a claim and demanded indemnity for these 

additional expenses at the same time and in the so.me manner that it 

presented the claim for "war premiums," and that indemnity was refused in both cases upgn precisely the same grounds. 

I do not think, therefore, , Mr. Speaker, that I shall envy the predicament in which my learned colleague from Ohio fMr. McMAHON] 

will find himself if be should be called· upon by his constituents to 

explain why he was soswiftte donate some '10,000,000, in which they 

had a common interest, to the merchants and ship-owners of the sea- board who saw proper to pay enhanced rates of insurance in order to save themselves from loss, and not reserve a cent to alleviate the 

burdens resting upon the people of his own and every other district 

throughout the Union. He will possibly find an additional difficulty 

in the fact that perhaps in ninety-nine cases in a hundred the pex:- son who paid the wM premirim added it to the price of his wares or the amount of his freights, and got it all back again, with a profit, 

from the consumer. I know it is claimed by t.he distinguisht:ld gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] that this was not done, and 

it may not have ueen in some isolated instances, but it will be very 

difficult to convince the honest yeomruuy of my colleague's district, · or my own, that either the merchant or the ship-ownoc carried on a losing business simply for amusement, especially during the war when 

thepricesof everythingthefarmerormechanichadto buy hadreached 

almost fabulous proportions. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said all I propose to say with reference 

to the substitute, I beg leave to address myself very briefly to the 

merits of the bill. And what, sir, does the bill propose to do! To 

give any portion of this money to the insurance companies f Not one word of it. Does it propose to de:prive those who may have paid war premiums or who suffered loss by any of the exculpated cruisers of 

the millionth part of a cent to which they may be entitled upon known 

principles of justice, equity, or law! Not a syllable of it, sir. If it 

<lid no gentleman could possibly oppose it :With more vehemence and 

zeal than I would myself. I should coDSlder myself as utterly un- worthy to associate with the honorable gentlemen I see around me if 

I .could consent to be instrumental in withholding from any man a sOlitary cent to which he is justly entitled. 

On the contrary, sir, it simply proposes, as I haTe already said, and as was so clearly shown in the able argument of the gentleman from 

Mississippi, [Mr. MANNING,] to remit all the intricate and perplexing 

questions connected with the entire subject and about which there seems to be such a contrariety of opinion upon this floor to a :forum 

where they can be calmly, deliberately, and dispassionately considered by a..regnlarly organized court, and there determined by disinterested and impartial judges according to the well-established principles of equity, justice, and international law, and not by the heated 

advocates of either party to the controversy. It proposes that the 

court shall be open to every possible claimant to any portion of the 

fund! No person or class of persons who pretend to have•a claim 

upon it is excluded. · And now, sir, I ask if any conceivable plan for the final distribution of this money could possibly be fairer or more expedient than 

thisf Can any one who pretends to have a just and honest claim to 

any portion of it offer any valid or reasonable objection to having his 

claim fairly adjudicated by aa impartial tribunal of his country, ea- pecially when the amplest provision· is made for the speediest possible 

determination of his .right both in that court and the supreme court 

of appeals! Are the claimants of war premiums or the sufferers by 

the exculpated cruisers afraid of justice 7 Do they shrink from the 

fullest and fairest investigation of their claims before an unbiased 

court with the Supreme Court to correct any error, injustice, or mistake that may be committed to their prejndiceY Will their advocates on this fJ.oor dare make such an admission·for them here! No, 

sir; the doors of this court and of the Supreme Court are thrown 

opep. to all claimants alike, and if one who asks indemnity for "war 

premiums" or for injuries done by any of the confederate cruisers can there show that according to the broad principles of natural justice, 

equity, or the law of nations he is entitled to any portion of this fund 

he will certainly get it, and if they cannot show themselves thus en- titlei to it I ask if there is a gentleman here who is willing to say 

they ought to have it Y On the contrary, the interests of tne Government cannot possibly be endangered, for if upon a careful examination of the entire subject under the strong, clear lights of justice 

and equity it shall appear that the fund belongs absolutely to the 

United States the court will certainly so determine and give it to 

none of the claimants at all. 

But again, ~Ir. Speaker, the bill reported by the committee is not 

only just in itself, but if there is any weight to be attached to legis- lative precedents, the princjples upon which it proceeds will be found 

in exact harmony with the almost unbroken practice of Congrees 

since the year 1'8-27. Yon will find collat~d in the report of the com- mittee eight instances in which the distribution of indemnity funds. similar to the one in question has been remitted to independent tribunals with authority to <;lecide upon ilhe rights of the various C'laimants according to the principles of justice, equity, and the law of na-- tions, unembarrassed by any special legislation, d.iscrimination for or- a~ainst any particular individual or class. I was amazed to hear my 

distinguished colleague from Ohio [Mr. :McMA.Ho~] attempt to evadethe force of these precedents simply upon the· grounds that thewrongs for which the indemnity in those cases was paid were com- mitted when the United States was at peace; for, sir, how can that 

circumstance make any difference Y Is not our Government as much 

bound to protect its citizens in the one ~ondition as the other f Or 

is it only bound to shield him in the calm sunshine of peace, and may 

abandon him and all his interests in the hurricane of warY 

And it is a remarkable fact, sii, that in all these cases we hear of no· complaint of any fraud, unfairness, injustice, or even mistake, except 

in two instances, occurring in the adjudication of the fund awarded· to the United States under the convention with China of November· 8, 1858. One was the case of the Neva, in which the claims of certain 

underwriters were disallowed by the commissioners, but the claimants were by act of Congress allowed, a rehearing before the AttorneyGeneral, who reversed· the decision of the commissioners, and payment was accorded them. · The other is the case of the bark Caldera, in which the commission- ers made a deduction of 60 per cent. in the claims of the underwriters. on account of the cargo, on the ground of a supposed pri01: damage by sea water, and the claimants were told that their a-cceptance of the40 per cent. allowed them would not preclude a rehearing of their case here in Washington. Inasmuch, however, as the act of 1859, 

creating the commission, allowed no such rehearing, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, through~· CRAPo, of Massa-chusetts, on the 5th of .March last, unanimously reported a bill for the relief of the parties. 

precisely"parallel in principle and almost exactly similar in detail tothe one now under consideration, which passed this House without a. division. · 

The first section of that bill provides that any person or corporation 

holding or makin§ any claim ppon the balance of the fund usually • designated as the 'Chinese indemnity fund," under the control of theDepartment of State of the United StaU~s and now unappropriated,. 

for losses sustained ·by the plunder and destruction of the bark €aldera in the year 1854 and property on board of said vessel, may at any 

time within twelve months from the passage of the act commence- proceedings in the United States Court of Claims against the United• States in the same manner as other suits are brought pursuant to and, in virtue of the statutes of the United States and the rules of said 

court; and that the court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such claim or demand according to the principles of justice and 

internationallaw; whilethesooondsectionmakesprovisionthateither 

party2 plaintiff or defendant, may appeal from the judgment of the 

Court of Claims to the Supreme Court as in other cases. And now .. sir, I would ask gentlemen who voted for that bill, or sat quietly by 

and saw it pass without uttering a syllable in opposition to ita becoming a law, to place it sid~ by side with the bill under consideration and point out the difference between them if they can, or show 

what possible objection can be urged against the one that does not.. apply with equal force to the other. 

Again, sir, I would ask gentlemen to contrast the speedy and satisfactory adjustment of claims under the precedents to which I havealluded, with the his!Qry of the French spoliation claims, in which 

such frequent and persistent efforts were made for nearly three-quarters of a century to have rights of the claimants determined by con- gressional enactment, and which, after having elicited reports from 

forty·two committees, have at length sunk, at least temporarily, out o~ 

view, and then say, whether it would be just or wise to permit this. 

fund to remain undisposed of for (J'enerations to come, a ,perpetual 

stigma to the honor and integrity of our Government. If it belongs. 

to the Government let the courts so decide, and the Government keep. 

it; if it belongs to others let them manifest their right to it by regular judicial proceedings, and take it. Let.the controversy be determined one way or the· other, finally and forever. Let us not hav6' 

these corridors thronged with claimants to this fund, pouring th& 

piteous tale of their wrongs into the ears of Congress for the next 

three-quarters of a century to come. It has been suggested, however, sir, that the passage of this billl 

will contribute additional burdens to the alre1Ldy crowded docket of 

the Supreme Court; but suppose that to be true, shall this Government say to even the meanest of its citizens, "Our courts are too busy 

to hear your cause; they have not time to do yon justice . " Shall it 

wave him off with the han~hty petulance of Richard ill when Buckingham demands the proiD.lsed earldom and movables of Hereford : "Thou troublest me; I am not in the vein f" 

But, sir, this objection is more specious than real. It is safe to say, 

that every question that can arise in relation to the right to this fund 

will be settled, if not in a single case, in two or three at the outside, 

and that the business of the Supreme Court will not be retarfled by 

them half as much as the business of this House has already' been by the discussion of the various measures which. have been brought before it touchin~ the distribution of this money. I believe, in fact,. 

that the determmation of all the questions w hie-h migltt arise in con-

• 
• 

560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 18, 

nection with this matter would not retard the general business of 

the Supreme Conrl to any appreciable extent whatever. 

But, Mr. Speaker, the objection which has been most persistently 

and earnestly urged against this bill is, that if it should become a law the insurance companies will be certain to be subrogated to the 

rights of the insured, and be reimbursed for the losses they have paid. 

This is assumed as an absolute certainty in the printed views of the 

minority, and has been the burden of all the more declamatory speeches 

which have given 11, spice to this discussion. It was the apprehension 

of that hideous fact which twice brought the marvelous magnanimity of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cm'ITE~TDE~] so conspicuously to the front. 

Well, sir, how that may be I am sure I do not' know, but there is 

one thing of which I am absolutely certain, and that is if the insur- ance companies do get any portion of this flmd under the provisions ·of this bill, they will do so either because they are justly and legallyentitled to it or because both the Court of Claims and the Supreme ·Courfiof the United States are so utterly depraved that they will .adjudge it to them in total disregard of every principle of justice, 

-equity, and law applicable to such cases. I am not particular which 

horn of this dilemma gentlemen may select. I give them their choice. 

Which will they take ~ There can be no dodging or evasion in the 

matter ; they must take one or the other. Now, will they assert here 

in the face of this House and of the world that both of these courts, 

and one of th~m the highest known to our system of government at 

that, are so completely lost to every sentiment of common decency, :eo completely sunk in beastly depravity, that it can be predicted with :absolute certainty that they will render a corrupt decision in favor of 

'(lertain parties eitherfrom bribery or the sheer love of corruption for 

its own sake f Are gentlemen prepared to say thai!. If not, they must 

.admit that if any portion of this fund shall be :1djudged to the in- surance companies it will be sim~ly because they are justly entitled 

to it according to the plain prinCiples of equity and right .• But, admitting their right to the fund, will gentlemen say they ought not to 

have it f Sir, I knGw they will not. I would spurn with indignant scorn the slightest insinuation that there is a member on this floor 

'base enough to get his own consent to withhold from any man a sin- • gle cent to which he can show hims~lf justly and lawfully entitled. 

Sir, I do not stand here as the champion of any class of claimants, ·bu.t as the hnmble advocate of justice. The insurance. companies 

may be, for aught I know or caro, the viewless, soulless, godless beings 

they have been represented. Yet, sir, they are composed of citizens 

of the United States who Jook, as you and I do, to the Constitution 

and laws of their country for. protection. Shall they not have simple 

justice f Or shall we confiscate their property in defiance of the most 

cherished of all the guarantees in our bill of rights, and shut the 

doors of our courts in their faces, merely because they may have been 

successful in the prosecution of a perfectly honest business demanded 

by the exigencies of commerce, authorized by law, and encouraged 

by an enlightened spirit Of enterprise T Shall· this Government, the 

_grandest, the freest, the proudest e"'\' er vouchsafed to man, after its 

sublime appeal to justice as the arbiter bet'ween nations, at Geneva, 

deny justice to its own citizens i . Sir, wo cannot afford to do that. The vital principle of repubiican 

government is not to be found in . the grandeur of its domain, the 

splendor of its possessions, the magnitude of its armies, or the strength 

of its navies, but in the popular confidence and affection inspired. by 

the certainty with which it administers simple, impartial justice to 

its citizens. When it refuses justice to even its humblest citizens, it 

1s to that citizen not a benefactor to be loved "and revered, but a despotism to be loathed and despised, a delusion and a fraud which holds 

<>ut the word of promise to the ear but breaks it to the hope. 

I have now, sir, discharged my duty to the House with regard to 

this matter, lmmbly it is true, but honestly a.nd faithfully, and what ever may be its Mtion I shall be content. 

Mr. HOUSE. I move to lay the bill and amendments on the tnble. 

Mr. FRYE. I ho1)e not. · . Mr. C.ARLfSLE. I think it is evident that we will not be able to 

dispose of this bill and pending amendments to-day. I therefore.move that the House naw adjourn. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state the effect of· the motion to 

a-djourn if carried. The effect will be to bring up this bill immediately af:er the reading of the Journal on Monday .. The motion to adjourn was not agreed to, upon a division-ayes 46, noes not counted. 

The question recurfed upon the motion of Mr. HousE to lay the 

bill and amendments on the table. 

Mr. LUTTRELL . . Upon that question I call for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were not ordered. 

The motion to lay on the table was not agreed to, upon a division1lyes 42, noes not counted. 

The SPEAKER. The question now is upon the amendment moved 

by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. FRYE] to the bill,r~ported from 

the Committee on the Judiciary, to add to section 1 that which will 

be read by the Clerk. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

lJnt in no cru~e shall any claim be admitt~ 0[' allowed hi' said court by or in be- lla~ of :my insnra;nce. COIDP:l?Y or insurer, either in !t.s or his own ri~ht, or as ass1gnee_or otherwise m the nght o~ a pe~on or pa:rty msured as aforesaid, 'lmless 

snch cla.imant shall show to the satisfaction of the conrt that durin"' the late rebell- ion the sum of its or his losses in resper.t to its or his war risks e:ceed.ed the snm 

of its ~r his premiullli! or other gains upon or in respect to such wnr risks; and: in case of any_ such allowance! ~e same sl:all not be ~eater than such excess of Io83• 

;And no claim shall be admissible or allowed by s&d court arising in f:l.vor of any 

~~<;: tir:U~~~ ~~~Y existing, at the time of the loss, nuder the hws of 

The question was taken upon the amendment; and upon a division 

there were-ayes 131, noes 50. 

Before the result of the vote was announced 

lli. KNOTT called for the yeas and nays. ' 

. The yeas and nays were not ordered, there being 28 in the affit·matlve; not one-fifth of the last vote. 

Mr. FRYE moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was a.!!Teed to. 

Mr. C~~ON, of illinois~ I 1low move that the bill as amen.decl ae laid upon the table. · 

The question was taken · and upon a division there were-ayes 7 . noes 106. · 

Before the result of the vote was announced 

Mr. CANNON of Illinois, and 1\Ir. MILLS, c~lled for the yeas and 

nays. 

The yeas and nays wete ordered; there being 47 in the affirmative, more than one-fifth of the last vote. · 

Mr. SPRINGER. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry .. The SPEAKER. 'l'he gentleman will state it. 

Mr. SPRINGER. What is the pending motion T 

Tho SPEAKER. It is to lay the bill as amended on the table. 

~·.SPRINGER .. 'Yill that include the substitute reported by the 

mmonty of the JudiCiary Committee' 

The SPEAKER. That motion, if a!ITeed to, will carry the bill and· everything connected with it upon th~ table. 

. The question was taken; and there were-yea'S 95, nays 122, not votmg 71 ; as follows: 

YEAS-95. 

Aiken, Cox, Samuel S. Hooker, Atkins, Culberson, House, 

Baker, John H. Cutler, Hubbell, 

Banning, Danford, Hungerford, 

Bicknell, DavisiJosephJ. Jones, JohnS. 

Blackburn, Dibre 1, Jones, James T. 

Blount, Durham, Kenna, Boone, Dwight, Kna.pp, 

Bouck, Eden Knott, Bright, Ellis' Ligon, 

Bro!!den, Feltau, Lynde, Burdick, Forney, Maish 

Cabell, · Garfield, Manning, 

Caldwell, John W. Goode, Marsh, 

Caldwell, W. P. Gunter, Mayham, 

Candler, Hardenbergb, McCook, 

Cannon, Harria, Henry R. M.l:Gowan, Chalmers, · Hartzell, Mills 

Clark, Alvah A. Hatcher :Morrison, 

Clark of Missouri, Hendemm, Mnldrow, 

Clark.e of Kentucky,Henry, O'Neill, Cl~er, Hewitt, AbramS. Patterson .. G. W. 

Couins, Hewitt, G. W. Patterson, T. M. 

Cook, Herbert, Pridemore, 

Acklen, 

Aldrich, 

Bacon, 

Bailey, • Baker, William H. 

Ballou, 

Bayne, 

:Benedict, Blair, 

Boyd, 

Brewer, 

Briggs, 

Browne, Buckner 

Bundy, ' 

Burchard, 

Cain, 

Calkins, Camp, 

Campbell, Carlisle, 

Caswell, 

Clafiin 

Clark, 'Rush 

Cobb, 

Cole, 

Conger, Crapo. Cravens, 

Crittenden, Cummings, 

Bagley, Banks, 

Beebe, Bell, 

Bisbee, Bland, 

Bliss, 

Bragg, Brentano, Bridgea, Butltlr, 

NAYS-122. 

Davois, Hora:ce Ketcham, Dean, Killfuger, Deering. Kimmel, 

Denison, Lapham, Dunnell, Lindsey, Eames, Loring, Eickhoff, Luttrell, Errett, Mackey, Evan , James L. .Majors, 

Evins, John .H. McKinley, 

Ewing, McMahon, Fort, Metcalfe, 

Fost.er, Mitchell, Frye, Monroe, 

Gause, Mprgan, Hale, Morse, Hannn, Neal, 

Harrison, N orcros , Hart, Olh·er, 

Haskell, Ororton, Hayes, Page, Hazelton, Phelps, Henkle, Pollai'd, Humphrey, Pound, Ittner, Price, James, Pugh, Jones, Frank :Rea, Jorgensen, Reed, Joyce, :Rice, Americus V. 

KeightJey, :Rice, William W. 

Kelley, Robinson, G. D. 

NOT VOTING-7L 

Chittenden, Co\ert, 

Cox:, Jacob D. Davidson, Llickey, 

Elam, 

Ellsw(jrth, 

Evans, !.Newton 

Finley, 

Franklin, 

Freeman, 

Fuller, 

Gardner, Garth, 

Gibson, 

Giddings, 

Glover, 

Hamilton, 

Harmer, 

Harris, Benj. W. 

Harris, John T. Hendee, 

Randolph, Rea~n. 

Robbins, 

Ross; 

Scales, Slemons, 

Smith, A. H~r 

Smith, William E. 

Southard, Sparks, 

Springer, Steele, Stenger, Throckmorton. Townshenu, R. w. 

Turney, 

Vance, Wadtlell, 

Wigjlinton, 

Williams, Jere N. Willis, Albert S. Willits, 

Yeates. 

.RobiJ.Lson, M. S. :Ryan, 

Sampson, Sexton, 

Shallenberger, Singleton, 

Sinnickson, Smalls, Starin, Stewart, 

Stone, John W . Strait, Swann, Thompson, Townsend, Amos, TowMend, M. L Tlll'ner, 

Van Vorhes, 

Walker, 

Ward, Warner. 

Watson, 

White, Han; White, Michael D. 

Williallli!, Aml.rew 

Williams, <.:. G. 

Williams, Richard 

Wren, 

Young, John 

Hiscock, 

Hunter, 

Hunton, 

Keifer. 

Landers, 

Lat.hrop. 

LockwOOd, 

Martin, 

McKenzie, 

Money, 

Muller, 
1879. COKGRESSIONAL R.ECORD-HOUSE . . 561. 

Peddie, Roberts, Thornburgh, Phillips, Robertson, Tipton, Potter, Sapp, Tucker, Powers, Sayler, Veeder, 

Rainey, Shelley, Wait, Reilly, Stephens, Walsh, 

:Riddle, Stone Joseph C. Whitthorne, 

Williams, James 

Willis, Benj. A. 

Wilson, 

Wood, Wright, 

Young, Casey. 

So the motion to lay on the table was not agreed to. 

During the roll-call the following announcements were made : Mr. MONEY. On this question I am paired with Mr. SAYLER, of 

Ohio. .If he were present, I would vote "no." 

l\Ir. SPARKS. I desire to state that Mr. COVERT, of New York, 

who is indisposed, is paired with Mr. REILLY, of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. HARRIS, of Georgia. My colleague, Mr. BELL, is absent on account of sickness. 

Mr. ELAM. I am paired with Governor HE!I.J>EE, of Vermont. If 

he were here, I would vote "ay ." 

Mr. CARLISLE. My colleague, Mr. McKENZIE, is absent serving 

..fpon §_committee of the House. 

Mr. HAMILTON. I scarcely know how to vote on this question. 

In justice to an absent member, Mr. FTh'LEY, of Ohio, I desire to 

make a statement. It was understood by that gentleman, I think, 

that I waa opposed both to the bill and amendments; that I was in 

favor of covering this money into the Treasury of the United States. 

A short time ago a telegram was received from him requesting me to 

pair with him on the majority bill; but leaving me at libert.y to vote 

"no" on the substitute of the minority. I asked his colleag\le, Mr. 

McMAHoN, what I should do in this case. There seems to be a conflict of opinion in regard to it. If I were permitted to vote, I 

would vote for laying thlB bill on the table. As I am paired upon it 

and as it seems that no one knows positively how Mr. FL"'LEY would 

vote on this particular question, I decline to vote. 

Mr. BRIDGES. On this question I am paired with Mr. WILLIS, of 

New York. If he were here, he would vote" ay" and I would vote 

"no." 

Mr. TUCKER. On all questions connected with this subject I am paired with Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. If I were not paired, I would 

vote "ay" upon the pending motion. I desire also to state that my 

colleague, Mr. Hm'"TOx, is paired with Mr. WILSON, of West Virginia. 

If Mr. HUNTON were here I suppose hE5 would vote "no." 

Mr. HARR.IS1 of Virginia. On this question and on all others con- nected with thlB bill I am paired with Mr. WArt, of Connecticut. 

Mr. WHITTHORNE. On this question I am paired with Mr. 'VILLIAMS, of Delaware. If he were here, he would vote "no" and I would 

vote" ay." 

1\'Ir.- COX, of Ohio. I am paired with Mr. POWERS, of Maine, who 

is absent on committee duty, attending the remains of the late Mr. 

Schleicher, of Texas. If he were present, he would vote "no" and I 

would vote "ay ." . Mr. KEIFER. I am paired on this question with Mr. MULLER, of 

New York, who is also absent on the committee attending the remains 

of Mr. Schleicher.· If he were here, I should vote" ay" and he would 

vote "no." . ! 

Mr. CRAPO. My colleague, Mr. HARRIS, is absent attendin·g the 

remains of the late Mr. Schleicher, of Texas, and is paired with Mr. 

GIDBINGS, of 'l'exas. If present, my colleague would vote "no" and 

Mr. GIDDINGS would vote" ay." . Mr. ROBINSON, of Massachusetts. The gentleman from New Jersey, l\lr. PEDDIE, is paired with the gentleman from West Vir~inia, 

Mr. MARTIN. On thL'i question Mr. PEDDIE would vote "IJ.O' and 

Mr. MARTIN "ay." 

Mr. STONE, of Iowa. I am paired with the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DAVIDSON. • Mr. McKINLEY. My colleagues, Mr. GARD~TER and Mr. DICKEY, are paired. · Mr. HANNA. My collea~e, Mr. HUNTER, is paired with my colleague, Mr. FULLER. Mr. Hm~R on this question would vote "no." 

I do not know how Mr. FULLER would v:ote. 

Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts. My colleague, Mr. B~"Ks, is paired 

with the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. ~JU.IN. My colleague, 

if here, would vote "no." 

Mr. TIPTON. I am paired with the gentleman from Maryland, 

Mr. ROBERTS. If he were present, he would vote "ay" and I should 

vote '!no." · Mr. BUTLER. I am paired with the gentleman from New York, 

Mr. POTIER, who, I suppose, would, if here, vote "ay." The result of the vote was announced as above stated. 

Mr. HALE moved to reconsider the vote just taken ; and also moved 

that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

The question then recurred on the adoption of the following substitute offered by Mr. McMAHoY, on behalf of the minority of the Judiciary Committee: · 

Strike ont all after the enacting clan.se and insert the following: Th.a.t an act approved June 23, 1874, entitled "An act for the creation of a court for the adjudication and disposition of certain moneys received into the Treasury 

under an award by the tribunal of arbitration constituted by the first article of the 

treaty concluded at Washington the 8th of May, A. D. 1871 between the United 

Stat.es of America and the Queen of Great Britain," be, and the same hereby is, 

re"rived, re.enacte<l, and continued; all the provisions thereof to take effect from and after the approval of this act, except as changed or modified. by this act. . SEC. 2. That the number of .i udges for said court shall be three; and the agreo- m~nt of. two of the judges shall be necessary to decide any question Q.fiting before 

ea1d court. 1 

Vlll-3G 

SEc. 3. That t!J.e jud,ges of the court hereby re-established shall convene and or~anize, in the city of Washington, as soon as practicable after their appointment; 

~~d::~h~~t ~~ff'1! !:~~~~~:f~\:f~~th~ cl~;of !idll c~~~~~fthi~a~{; 

lis~~~.frT:att~b!g=a~:~ ~h!~ebes~~ ~fa~;d ~s~~ib:Ji~d :~~i~~~~f said 

original act not already adjudicated, and for claims directly resulting from damage done on the high seas by confederate cruisers during the late rebellion including vessels and cargoes attacked and taken on the high seas or pursued by them therefrom, although the loss or damage occurred within four miles of the shore. 

In cases of the loss of a whaling-vessel and outfit, the court shall allow, in addition to the compensation provided for in the said original act, the sum of 10 per cent., in lien of freight, upon the yalue of said vessel and outfit as found by said court. And upon all judgments heretofore rendered under said act for the loss of a whaling-vessel and outfit, there shall be allowed the said snm of 10 per cent. upon the awards as made by the court·, with 6 per cent- interest thereon from the day from which said ori!!inal award bore interest until the date of payment. Tile second clliss shall be for claims for adtlitional interest upon judgments which 

have been awarded and decreed by the said court of Alabama claims under th6 

said original act; such interest to be computed in each case from the time from 

which interest was allowed in the original judgments, at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum in addition theret6, to the time of payment, as hereinafter provided . And upon all judgments to be hereafter rendered upon claims of the first class, as herein described, interest shall be allowed at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, instead of 4, as provided in the original act. The third class shall be for clainis for the payment of premiums for war risks, 

whether paid to the corporations, agents. or indi"riduals, after the sailing of any confederate cruiser; in determining wliich it shall be the duty of the court to 

deduct any sum in any way receive<l by or paid to the claimant in diminution of 

the amount paid for any such premium, so that the actual loss only shall be allowed. 

SEC. 5. That the judgments rendered by said court under this act shall be paid in currency by the Secretary of -the Treasury out of the sum of money paid to the United States pursuant to article 7 of the treaty of Washington, and accruing therefrom, not approJ?riated to claims heretofore proT"ed and allowed Under the 

provisions of said origmal act and the net extending the time for the filing of claims 

thereunder. 

And the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay out of said fund, without further adjudication uy any court, the 10 per cent. upon< 

whalin~-vessels and their outfit, with interest, as provided in section 5 of this act, 

upon au awards heretofore made for their loss; and to pay in the samo manner the sum of 2 per cent. per annum upon judgment.s which have been heretofore rendered 

by said court, to be computed, as provided in section 5 of this act, up to tho time 

o-f paYIIlent; and, to enable him to make such payments, the Secretary of State is 

directed to furnish a certified statement to the Secretary of the Treasnry from the 

files and records of the court in hie possession. SEC. 6. Judgments rendered in the first class shall be first paid, and as soon as entered. Payments shaH be made in the second class before judgments in the 

third class. If the sum of money so unappropriated shall be insufficien to pay the 

claims of the second class in full, they shall be paid according to the proportions which they severally bear to the whole amount of such unappropriated sum after 

fhe payment of judgments in the first class; and the same rnle shall be applied in 

the payment of judgments in the third class. 

SEc. 7. No pel'SOn shall be excluded from the provisions of this act by reason of 

his being born in any other country than one of the United States, if at the time he 

suffered the loss or clamage provided for. in this act he was residing in the United 

States and doing . bn.siness therein, or was sailing under the protection of the flag of the United States. 

SEc. 8. Th.a.t all claims filed, or that may hereafter be filed, in said court in the name of one or more claimants, relating to a vessel in which other claimants are interested, shall be deemed and held to lie legally filed the sam~ as if all the par· ties in interest had joined in the filing of the pet1tion. SEc. 9. That this act shall not be construed as in any way renewi.ng, extemliog, or continuing any of the commissions or appointments of judges or officers of the 

said court of commissioners of Alabama. cla.rms issued and made by virtue of said 

original act. $Ec. 10. That all moneys necessary for the payment of the salaries of the judges and officers authorized by this act, and for the lawful expenses of the said court hereby re-established, are hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the •rreasnry not otherwise appropriated; all of which shall be reimbursed ont of the said unap- propriated moneys before any of the judgments rendered under this act except the 

first class shall be paid. And after the reimbnrsament of all the expenses authorized by this act, and the payment of 3ll the judgments rendered thereunder, if 

there shall remain any part of the said money the same shall be and remain a fund from which Congress may hereafter .authorize payment of other claims thereon. 

The question being taken the substitute was adopted, there beingayes 112, noes 73. . · Mr. HALE moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and also mo¥ed 

that the motion to reconsider be L'\id on the table. · The latter motion wa.s agreed to. 

The bill, as amended by the adoption of the substitute,W:as ordered 

to be engrossed for a third reading; and was accordingly read the third 

time. 

The question being on the pa.ssage of the bill, 

Mr. McMAHON. I demand the previous question. 

Mr. EDEN. I move that the House adjourn. 

The motion of Mr. EDEN was not agreed to, there being-ayes 40, noes not counted. 

The previous question was seconded and 1he main question ordered, 

which was upon th~ passage of the bill. 

Mr. KNOTT. I call for the yeas and nays on the passage of the 

bill. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken; and there were-ye~s 113, nays 93, not 

voting 82; as follows: 

Acklen, Aldrich, Bacon, Bailey, Baker, William H. 

Ballou, Bayne, Blair 

Boy~ 

Brewer, 

~~~~~~II, Brotvne, 

YEAS-113. 

, Buckner, Bundy, 

~u.rchard, 

{.)aJil, • 

Camp, 

Campbell, 

Carlisle, 

Caswell,. Claflin, 

Clark, Alvah A. 

Cobb, · Cole, 

Conger, 

Crapo, 

Cravens, 

Crittenden, Cumminus, Davis, H'orace 

Dean, Deering, Denison, 

Dunnell, Eames, Eickhoft', 

Errett, 

E"l'"ans, JamesL. 

Ewing, Fort, 

Foster, Frye, Hn.l.e, Hanna, 

Harrison, 

Haskell. 

Hayes, 

Hazelton, 

Henkle, 

Humphrey 

Ittner, 
562 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J .ANUARY 18,' 

James, 

;r ODes, Frank 

Joyce, Keightley, 

Kelley, 

Ketcham, 

Killinger, 

Kimmel, 

Lapham, •t Lathrop, Lindsey, 

Loring. 

Luttrell, 

McGowan, 

McKinley, 

McMahon, 

Metcalfe, Mitchell, 

Monroe, Morse, 

Neal, 

~orcross, 

Oliver, 

Overton, 

Page, 

Patterson, G. W. 

Phelps, 

Pollard, Pound, 

Price, Pugh, Rainey, 

Rea, 

~,an, 

Rioe, William W. 

Robinson, G: D. 

Robinson, M. S. 

Ross, 

Ryan, Samp on, Sexton, Sbn.llenberger, Singleton, 

Sinnickson, 

~=8 Stewa · . 

:NAY~93. 

A thlns, Cox, S!lmuel S. Hewitt, Abram S. 

Bagley, Culberson, . Hewitt, G. W . EaKer, John. H. Cutler, Hungerford, Ba.uning, Danford, .Tones, JohnS. 

Benedict, Davis, .r oseph .r. Kenna, 

Bicknell, Dillrell, Knott, 

Bla<lkburn, Durham; Ligon, 

Blount, Dwight~ Lynde, 

=~f;, ~J!; ~~y, Bright, · Evins, John H. Manning, Burdick, Felton, Marsh, 

Cabell, Forney, Mayham, Caldwell, J. W. Garfield, McCook, 

Caldwell, W. P. Goode, Mills, 

Candler, Gunter, Morgan, Cannon, Hamilton, Morrison, 

Chalmers, Hardenbergb, · Muldrow, 

Clark of Missouri, . Harris, Henry R. N~, 

Clarke of Kentucky, Hart, Patterson, T. M. 

Clark, Rush Hartzell, Pridemore, Clymer, Hatc.her, Randolph, 

Collins, Henderson, Rice, Americus V. 

Cook, Henry, ltobbins, 

NOT VOTING-82. 

.Aiken, Fra.nklin, Jorgensen, Banks, Frooman, Keifer, 

Beebe, Fuller, Knapp, · Bell, Gardner, Landers, 

Bisbee, Garth, Lockwood, .Bland, Gause, Majors, . Bliss, Gibson, Martin, Bragg, Giddings, M<lKenzie, 

Brentano, Glover, Money, Bridges, Harmer, Muller, 

Butler, Hartis, Benj. W. Peddie, 

Calkins, Harris, .TobiJ. T. Phillips, Chittenden, Jrendoo, Potter, 

Covert, Herbert, Powers, Cox, Jacob D. Hiscock, Reilly, D~vidaon, Hooker, Riddle, 

Dickey, HHousebbe'n, RoRobe 00rts, t·• Elam, u rtson, Ellswortb, Hunter, Sapp, 

Evans, L Newton Hnntoll, Sayler, Finley, Jones, .TamesT. Shelley, 

So the bill was passed. 

Stone, John W . Strait, 

SwailD, 

Thompson, 

ToWWI6nd, Amos 

Van Verhes, 

Waddell, 

Warner, Watson, 

• 

White, Michael D. 

William , .Andrew 

Williams, C. G. 

Williams, Richard. 

Scales, Slemon.s, Smith, .A. Herr · Smitb, William E. 

Southard, 

Sparks, 

Springer, 

Steele, 

Stenger, ThrOCkmorton, 

Townshend, R. W. 

Turner, Turney, 

Vance, Walker, 

· winfa!t:n· Wi , .rereN. 

Willis, · Albert S. 

Willits, 

Yeates, 

Young, Jehn S. 

Stephens, Stone, .Tose_ph C. 

Thornburgh. 

Tipton, 

Townsend, M. I, 

Tucker, 

Vooder, Wait, Walsb, 

Ward~ 

White, Harry Whittborne, 

Williams, .Tames 

Willis, Benj. A. 

Wilson, 

Wood, Wren, Wright, Young, Casey. 

• 

During the roll-call the following announcements were made: 

Mr. MONEY. I am paired with the gentleman f1om Ohio, Mr. 

SAYLER1 who has been. called away by business. If he were present, 

I shoul<1 vote "ay." 

Mr. SPARKS. The gentleman from New York, Mr. CoVERT, who 

is paired with the gentleman ;t-om Pennsylvania, Mr. REILLY, would 

vote for the bill of the majority of the committee, and therefore 

against this substitute of the minority. · Mr.SPRINGER. Thege~tlemanfromTennessee,Mr.WmTIHOR.."'JE, 

is paired with the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. WILLIAMS. 1\Ir. 

WHITIHORNE, if 'here, would :vote "no" and Mr. ·WILLIAM~ would 

vote "ay." . Mr. MULDROW. My colleague, Mr. HooKER, is paired with the 

gentleman from Indiana, Mr. CALKINs. If 1\Ir. HOOKER were present, 

he wonld vote " no ,, and Mr. CALKINS would vote "ay." 

Mr. HAMILTON. My v:ote on this question is "no.'' The gentle- man from Ohio, Mr. FINLEY., with whom I am paired, would vote 

against the minority report and in favor of the majority report. .'fhis 

question being upon the minority report, I vote "no." 

Mr. BRIDGES. I am paired with the gentleman from New York, 

Mr. WILLis, who, if here, would, I presume, vote "no." I should 

vote for the bill in its present form as the best thing I could get. 

Mr. GUNTER. My colleague, Mr. GAUSE, is paired with the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. SAPP. Mr. GAUSE, if present, would vote 

"no" and Mr. SAPP "ay." 

Mr. EVINS, of South Carolina. Mycolleague,l\Ir. AIKEN, is pail.·ed 

with ~Ir. WARD, of Pennsylvania. If present, Mr. A.lxE)i would 

vote "no" and Mr. WARD wohld vote "ay ." 

Mr. TUCKER. I am paired with Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. If 

he were present, I should vote " no" and he would vote " ay ." My 

colleague from Virginia, Mr. HUNTON, is paired with 1\Ir. WILSO:Y, of 

West Virginia. If present, Mr. HUNTON would vote" ay " and !suppose :Mr. WILSON wonld vote "no." 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. On this question I am paired with 

Mr. HE;RBKRT, of Alabama. If he were present, he would vote "no" 

and I should vot-e "ay." ' 

Mr. COX, of Ohio. I am paired on this question with Mr. POWERS, 

"f Maine. If he were present, Mr. POWERS would vote "ay " and I 

should \Ote uno." 

.Mr. RYAN. My colleague from Knnsas, Mr. PmLLIPs, is absent on account of important business. If present, he ·would "no." · Mr. KEIFER. I am Eaired with Mr. MULLER, of New York. If 

present, he would vote 1 ay," as I am informed, and I would vote 

'.lno." 

Mr. ROBINSON, of Massachusetts. 1\Ir. PEDDIE, of New Jersey, and 

Mr. MARTIY, of West Virginia, are paired. If present, Mr. PEDDIE 

would vote u ay" n.nd Mr. MARTIN uno." 

Mr. STONE, of Iowa. · I am paired with :Mr. DAVIDSON, of Florida. 

Mr. HANNA.. My colleagues from Indiana, Mr. HUNTER and Mr. 

FUU.ER, are paired. 

)!r. TIPTON. I am paired with ?fir. RoBERTS, of Maryland. If 

present, he would vote'' no" and I should vote u ay." 

Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts. My colleague, Mr. BAXKS, is paired 

with Mr. FRANKLIN, of Missouri. If present, Mr. BANKS would. vote 

"ay." 

The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded. 

Mr. McMAHON moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill wss passed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the ~~ . The latter motion was agreed to. 

Mr. McMAHON. I move that the title of the bill be amended so as to read: 

A bill for revhi.ng and continuing the court of C®lmissioners of Alabama claims, and for the distribution of the unappropriated moneys of the Geneva 

award. , 

The· motion was agreed to. 

PENSION APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. SMITH, of Pennsylvania, frpm the· Committee on Appropriations, reported back the bill (H. R. No. 5501) making appropriations 

for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States 

for the year ending Jtine ;30, 1&:l0, with amendments by the Senate, 

and moved that the amendments of t,he Senate be concurred in. 

The motion was agre~d to. . ~Ir. SMITH, of Pennsylvania, moved to reconsider the vote by which 

the amendments of the Senate were concurred in; and also moved 

that the motion to reconsider be laitl on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to . 

MILITARY FORT AT EL PASO, TEXAS • 

Mr. THROCKMORTON, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, c~msidered, and agreed to: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be request~ to communicate to the Honse 

the necess~. if any exista, for the construction of a military fort a.t El Paso, 

Texas, and, if such necessity exists, the amount of money that will be required for 

the construction thereof. 

EXPENSES OF PUBLIC PRTh""TING. 

~Ir. SINGLETON. I desire to report from the Committee on Printing a bill to reduce the expense of the public printing and binding 

andjor other purposes. I ask· that the bill be printed and made a special order for Monday. . The SPEAKER. That requires unanimous consent. 

Mr. SINGLETON. I am aware of that. I do not think there will 

be any objection to the order being made. It will not take an hour. 

1\Ir. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. Monday is too soon. Say Wednesday. -

~Ir. SINGLETON. Very well; I will say Wednesday, after the 

morning hour. 

.Mr. CONGER. Let the title of the bill be again read. 

The title of the bill was again read. 

Mr. SINGLETON. I wish to say just one word. I assure the House 

that this will save to the Government 175;000 a year. ' 

Mr. CONGER. Does the bill propose a transfer of the public printingf 

Mr. SINGLETON. No, sir; it does not interfere with that at all. ~Ir. CONGER. I do not object to the bill being printed, but I object 

to fixing a day for _its consideration. . The SPEAKER. The Chair soggest~:J to the gentleman from 1\Iississippi to move that the bill be printed and recommitted. By adopting that course whatever privilege he has he will maintain. 

Mr. CONGER. Not to be brought back on a motion to reconsider. 

T.ke SPEAKER. The Committee on Printing have a right to report it at any time. . Mr. SINGLETON. I give my word that there is not a single feature 

in the bill to which the gentleman will object . .All the Departments 

agree to it and the printing department agrees to it. The bill simply 

reduces the expenses of printing. · Mr. MILLS. I move that the House do now adjourn. 

The SPEAKER. Pending the motion to adjourn the Chair will submit sundry requests. 

LEAVE OF ABSEXCE. 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to 1\fr. WILL· 

I.A:\IS, of Delaware, for three days. 

LEA. VE TO PRINT. 

By unanimous consent, leave was granted to Mr. BLAIR to have ·printed in the REcoRD r~marks on the Senate bill for the appointment 

of a commission on the traffic in alcohol; and also remarks on the 

bill providing for a subsidy to the Texas Pacific Railroad ; and to 

Mr. liARrusoN to have printed in the REcoRD some remarks. on the 

bill introduced by him on free ships. [See Appendix.] 
1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 563 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. . 

Mr. CONGER. I withdraw my objection to :fixing a. day fo1· the con- sideration of the bill reported by the gentleman from Mississippi. 

Mr. PAGE. I renew it. 

Mr. SINGLETON. I ask the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MILLs] 

to withdraw his motion to adjourn, that I may ask to have the bill 

recommitted. 

Mr. MILLS. I withdraw the motion to adjourn. 

Mr. SAMPSON. I renew it. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I ask the ~entleman from Iowa not to 

insist at present on the motion. to a-djourn. I have a matter here 

which I am sure nobody .will object to. 

Mr. S.AliPSON. I insist on the motion. 

The question being taken on the motion to adjourn, the Speaker announced that in the. opinion of the Chair the "ayes" had it. 

Mr. C()X, of New York. I call for a division. 

The House divided; and there were-ayes 44, noes 31. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I call for tellers. 

Tellers were not ordered. . So the motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at live o'clock and 

thirty minutes p. m._) the House adjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The followi.Dg petitions, &c., were presented at the Clerk's desk, 

under the rule, and .referred as stated: 

By Mr. ALDRICH: The petition of Charles R. Lang, president of 

the Buffalo branch of the Chicago Seamen's Benevolent Union, and 

other,. presidents and officers connected with seamen's benevolent asso- ci'ations, for the repeal of sections 829 and 4585of the Revised Statutes, 

relating to the hospital tax on seamen, &c.-to the Committee on Commerce. · By 1\Ir. BA.K..ER, of New York: The petition of women of Vermillion, New York, for legislation to make effective the anti-polygamy 

law of 1862-to the Committee on tho Judiciary. 

By Mr. BUNDY: Resolutions of the senate of New York, opposing 

the passage of the Axmy reorganization bill-to the Committee on Military .Affairs. · By Mr. CARLISLE: The petition of Dr. J. B. A. Risk and others, 

citizens of Kentucky, for the passage of a law to prohibit the adul-. teratlon of sweets-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. COBB: The petition of ladies of Pleasantville, Indiana, and v icinity, for such legislation as~ make effective the anti-polygamy 

la.w of 1862-to the same comm1ttee. 

By Mr. COX, of New York: Papers relatino~r to the war claim of 

Sarah H. Milveney-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By•Mr. DffiRELL: P~pers relating to the war claim of John M. 

Kimbrough-to tho same committee. 

By 1\Ir. FORT: The petition of M.A. Newman and 65 others, of Collinst:!Illinois, for the prevention of the adulteration of sweets-to the 

Comntfttee of .Ways and Means. . By 1\Ir. HENDERSON: The petition of Lucy A. Robinson and 57 

other women, of Burns and Cambridge Townships Henry County, 

Illinois, for such legislation as will make e:ffecti ve the anti-polygamy 

law of 1862-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Also, the petit,ion of Mrs. Thomas Nowers and 14 other women, of 

Atkinson, Illinois, of similar import-to the same commiitee. 

By .Mr. HEWI'IT, of New York: The petition of A. T. Stewart & 

Co., for the appointment of a committee to investigate appraisements 

of kid gloves at the port of New York-to the Committee of Ways 

and Means. 

By Mr. HOOKER: The petition of women ef Tbugaloo University, 

Hinds·Connty, Mississippi, for legislation to make effective the antipolygamy law of 1862-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By M.r. KEIGHTLEY: The petition of Mary Worthington and 70 

others, of Buchanan, Michigan, of similar import-to the same com- mittee. , Also, the petition of Mrs. W. A. House and 180 others, of Kalamazoo, Michigan, of similar import-to the same committee. 

/ By Mr. KIDDER: The petition of J. C. Miller and others, for a. land 

office near Ka.mpeska, Dakota Territory-to the Committee on Public Lands. 

Also, the petition of E. Harris and others, of similar import-to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of F. L. Cameron and others, of similar importto the same committee. 

Also, the petition of Fred. J. Bowman and others, of similar importto the same committee. 

Also, the petition of John.H. Drake and others, of similar importto the same committee. . By Mr. LAPHAM: Resolutions of the ~enate of New York, opposing the passage of the Axmy reorganization bill-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. MAISH: The petition of William J. Morton, for a pensionto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Byt.:\Ir. 1\IcGOW AN: The petition of D. W.}'eabody and 5 others, merchant~ of Hanover, Michigan, for legislation to prevent the adulteration of food-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By 1\Ir. PATTERSON, of Ne,~ York: Resolutions of the Legislature of New York, opposing the passage of the Army reorganization billto the Committee on Military .Affairs. 

Also, the petition of 43 ladies, of Findley's Lalle, New York, for 

legislation to make ~ffective the anti-polygamy law of 1862-to the' 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

By 1\Ir. PHELPS : The petition of Rev. Mrs. A. 0 . .Abbott and 45 

other ladies, members of the Methodist Episcopal church, of Nangatuck, Connecticut, of similar import-to the same committee. 

By Mr. POUND: The petition of 1\Irs. Isabella W. Phillips and 40 

other ladies, of Westfield, Wisconsin, of similar import-to the same committee. . · By Mr. PRICE: The petition of the Women's Christian Temperance 

Union, of Fort Dodge, Iowa, and 80 others, for a commission of inquiry 

concerning the alcoholic liquor traffic-to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of the Women's Christian Temperance Union; of 

Lansing, Iowa, and40 others, of similar import-to the same committee. ·Also, the petition of the Woman's Temperance Union and 120 others, of Oskaloosa, Iowa, of similar import-to the same committee. 

By Mr. RICE, of Ohio:. The petition of John Honegger, ior a pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. STEELE: The petition of C. C. Wade, W. H. Watkins, and 

40 others, citizens of Montgomery County, North Carolina, for a reduction of the tax on spirits distilled from fruit, and a chan_ge in themode· of collecting internal revenue-to the Committee of Ways and: 

Means. 

By Mr. TUIL~Y: The petition of women of Green County, Pennsylvania, for such legislation as will makeeffectivetheanti-polygamy 

law of 1862-to the Committee on the Judie,iary. 

By Mr. WHITT HORNE: The petition oi JohnS. Cunningham, a. pay director United States Navy, to be reimbursed certain moneys 

withheld by a clerk in the Navy pay office and appropriated to his. own use-to the Committee on Naval Affairs. 

IN SENATE. 

l!ONDAY, Jan,Ua'ry 20, 1872. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, R-ev. BYRON S~DERLAND, D. D. 

The J onrnal of the proceedings of Friday last was read and approved. EXECUTIVE COl\brmnCATIOXS. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate.a communication 

from the Secretary of War, transmitting a report of Major Godfrey 

Weitzel, of the Corps of Engineers, on the superintendence, management, and repair of the Louisville aml Portland Canal for the year 

ending· December :H, 1818; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of War, transmitting copies of reports from Generals Sherman, Sheridan, and Terry, setting forth the necessity for the construction of 

buildings for the military he~dquarters at Fort Snelling, Minnesota, 

and recommending an appropriation of $125,000 for that purpose; 

which was referred to the Committee on 1\fi.l.itary Affairs, and ordered 

to be printed. . He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of War, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers and a. letter 

from Captain William Ludlow, of the Corps of Engineers, submitting 

estimates of the amounts required for the protection from overflow of 

the sites,of fortifications on the Delaware ~iver, and also estimates 

of the cost of repairs at Sandy Hook, New Jersey; which wus referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, and orde:ed to be printed. 

PETITIONS A....'\"'1> JIEJIORIALS. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT presented the petition of :Mrs. I. L. Davenport and 2'2 other women, of Iowa, praying for the passage of an act making effective the anti-polygamy law of 1862; which \Vas re- ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. CONKLING. I present a resolution of the Assembly of the 

State of New York, touching the so-called reorganization of.tkeAxmy 

bill, and I ask that it be read. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. It will be read. 

The resolution was read, a,nd ordered to .lje on the table, as follows: 

OB motion of .Mr. BrllUlaD, 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 

AssEMBLY CHAMBER, .Albany, Janua1·y 15,"\879. 

· Whereas the Armyreor~ation bill now before Congress, proposes to prohibit the fnrthermanufa{lture of ordnance and ordnance stores at Uruted States arsenals; to sell all the arsenals which thus become unnecessary, and hereafter to pm-elillse ordnance and ammunition from private manufactures only: Therefore, 

Resolved, Tba.t the Senators a.nd Representati>es of this State in Congress be re- quested to oppose the passage of said bill, or at least the portions relating to the 

Ordnance department., New York arsenals, and ordrumcesroree. 

By order of A embly. EDW. M. JOHNSON, Clerk. 

Mr. PLUMB presented the petition of D. J •. Holmes and 2,000 others, 

citizens of Kansas, praying for an amendment to the Constitution of 

the United States prohibiting the several States from disfranchising 

United States citizens on account of sex; which was referred to tho 

Committee on Privileges a.nd Elections. 

1\Ir. DORSEY. I pl'6Sent the memorial of C. C. Cox, chairman of 

the Capitol Hill and East Washington Improvement .Association, set- t~g forth the condition of. the streets· in the.eaatern portion of the