The New York herald., 1870-12-02

| TIss-The act OF ,oo was passed to erect Q wis
| and constitutional purpose. ~ would be mischiey
to permit individual citizens to intcrp0se IN
| negotiation between eur own and any foreign gov
/ ernmenL TO do so was therefore, properly made
mis- emeanor, puRi liable by fine and Imprisonment
the act however was passed when statesmen an
mlnistered the governments: Tney knew what 1t
legImale powers are, and that these were intended
for the protection Of Individual rights not their de
Btructi0n.
They. therefore provided that nothing in the ac
'snail be construed TO abridge the OF indivdna
citizens or The United States TO apply by themselves
or tneHawiul agents, TO any for egn government q
the agents thereof fer the redress any injuries il
relation 70 persons or property which such noivldn
ais may nave sustained from such government ol
any OF ITS agents, citizens or subJects.''
IL ~ net even open 10 doubt that the claims IN
question are within this proyisO. They belong IA
Individual citizens, and originated from InJufie
Great Britain, sr It's agents, citizens or sub
!ecs, and, being such, are, BY the very terms OF
the proylso, embraced within Il. The claim
ants, consequently, have right 10 apply 10 The
British government fer redress. They were, IN
the first instance under 10 0bllgatien 10 soclI
the aid OF the government They could at once,
have applied directly 10 Great Britain. But things
then so0d they deemed IL advisable TO aSk'such aid
and with this view filed their claims In The State
suppose they had applied directly to the Eng
Iish governments, and tnat government had fully
paid them. would this have been q violation, or
the act OF '99Y Can IL be possible that the pre-
sent administration Will continue to hold the
0pinien that The recovery by citizen or debt
que nun Dy foreign government Is crime
independent or the proYiso, such doctrine
would shook csnrnon sense as being utterly unena-
bic and grossly unjust Are the claimants In q
worse situation In this respect from their having
invoked The aid OF the government In undertaking
the duty the government only acted as their agent
trustee, and from causes for which the claimants
are NOS responsible, It's Efforts have proved wholly
unayailing. The claims are stlll unsatisned, aud
there Is no present prospect that they Will ever be
satisfied through governmental assistance.
lsit conceivable that such an lmpotent agency is
70 continue against the wish OF the principaisY Are
their rights 10 be sacrificed and rendered vslueless
ny the ruinous delays caused by the agentY His
failure 10 obtain redress for the claimants ls evil
IDENTIFY referahe to the fact that he has associated
win the claims demands OF his own. He has re-
jected an agreement that would have resulted in
their liquidation, because IL did not provide for de-
mands OF his own. The government therefore, Is
using individual rights growing out OF individual
wrongs 10 recover something for itself arising rom
This Is virtually appropriatlng private property
"for puDlic use without compensation" which Is
expressly prohibited by the constitution Of the Uni
The government has no right to pursue such a
% sourse II is bound, ! think. in Justice in law
redress for themselves. No part OF what is due
them belongs to the gsv rnment 1t has no
end or It's own, than 1t would have II the British
government was 70 transmit he amount claimed to
the State Department for the benefit Of the claim
ants, to refuse TO pay II over and appropriate to
some purpose Of lis own.
Whatever the government may do In the matter,
sustain the claimants. The conduct Of Great
Britain, out OF which these claims originated, IN
wrSn0 e. sne ts states e well a. 9.
Great Britain that will not c0ndone the injustice
done the government, or satisfy 2ny pecunary de.
These win still be open for adjustment by negotia.
ton. But 10 prohibit the claimants from proceeding
TO obtain satisfaction for their individual losses until
tile government shall succeed in ereettng settle-
ment Of their asserted losses woula be the height OF
injustice ana, In my Judgment, would be without q
ment should now pay the claimants, would this be an
onence to the United StatesP The claims are
due because OF the miscsnduct OF that govern
Inent VIII they be guilty OF further misc 0nduct
II they satisfy the individuals who were the sucer.
ers by IT. That would be to hold that 10 do rlgnt
ts as unjust as TO do wrong-a proposition too
absurd to be entertained by any sane mind.
Second-Do the claims In the possession OF the
underw writers belong to them or the United Statess
NOtwithst anding the htgh Official authority which
raises these questions, they do not seem TO me to
merit serious consideration. The vessels and their
inshrea against loss by capture-the war risk was
assumed by the underwriters. ana they, having
paid the original owners the rull value st the pre-
perty destroyed II seems TO be but just that they
should receive whatever may be saved.
No principle OF law is better settled than thar, in
rights Of the assured. He Is esteemed as a quasi
purchaser OF the property, and as standing In all
respects 70 II IN the place Of the assured This doc
have the least knowledge OF the law thar 10 Cite
authorities in Its suppsrt would seem 70 be Idle.
upon the point they who thus ignorant viii find
insurance, and In every sdlnaicated case In which
Not to refer to any ether adjudication, / content
myself with that or The North OF england lnsqr-
ance Association VS.. Armstrong" decided In the
present year in the Queens Bench. and reported
In Law Reports, 2l4 In giving the opinion,
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn stated the principle
In these words:-"Now ] take 1t to be clearly
established, In the Of total loss, that
whatever remains OF a vessel In the shape OF
OF the tning insured and lost they pass to the
underwater the moment he Is calea upon
TO satisfy the exgency Of the policy, and he does
satisfy t.r at has always been considered as q
settled rule in insurance law that where there is
total loss the underwriters. who pay upon total
loss whether 1t is actual whether 1t is csnstruc-
tive, are entitled to anything that remains Of the
vessel, and TO anything which would otherwise
have accrued to the owner OF the vessel by reason
OF his ownershpn
suppose that dulness itself could hardly main
tain that the original owners OF tue proserty would
not have right to demand satisfaction Of the
British government II they mad not been fully in
demnided by the underwriters.
Then If the underwriters are not substituted for
the insured and ealited TO Whatever may be re.
covered Of the claim, who else is? IL cannot be
that the right TO The property insured was extln-
guished by its desuuctte1.
uGlnsu,s11 Torld have Mad no claim to indemnity.
Can 1t be that their having been paid in full by the
British governments All intelligent men must
answer this question In the negative. The right
them not beng extnQuished, and Great Britain not
exonerated she is bound TO pay the underwriters.
What conceivable title hNye the United States
They were not the original owners OF the pro-
perty. They nave never paid dollar on account
OF It, nor 40 they propose to pay deilar TO the
underwriters 1t would, consequently, follow
that II, on any ground, the underwriters are not
the owners OF the claims they are without an
owner, and there s no one who can call upon
Great Britain for satisfaction. But the govern
ment from the arst have been requiring such salts
factisn for the benefit OF the claimants, and have
never on this ground, made any pecuniary demand
for themselves. Is there the slightest fopnsatlon
Tor the Presldents view that the underwriters are
not entitled to the claims because they were salts.
fed by the premiums they recetvedg
!. The underwriters have paid the entire value or
every vessel and cargo destroyed. l do not GER
tainly know what the whole amount was, but the
folly and injustice OF the proposition s striklngY
| illustrated In the case OF your company. The
list you have sent me shows that your
company, during the war, insured against
war risk twenty.feur vessels with their cargOes
and that the premiums charged were from hall per
cent TO five per cent-the average being two and
seven-tenths per cent. The amount OF loases paid
was, inhe total SS34 $40, and the premiums received
&S, s67, being loss 10 the company OF $S25, ,942
Ihc rates of Insurance charged by yen for the wal
risk you Informed me, were the same as those OF al
underwriters In New York and Boston.
b Inn M