The New York herald., 1871-03-18
TEE ALABAMA CLAIMS.
Who Was 1t That Suffered
by tine Alabama
Are All the Sufferers Americans What the
English Commissioners May Propose and
tho Government Perform.

the Alabama claims, which we give for the niorma-
tion OF our readers:-
The Alabama question has hitherto been discussed
apparently without reference to some details which
must needs be considered before any allowance OF
the claims can be brought to practical issue, and
the consideration OF which, II not taken In time, may
surround the settlement OF the claims with consider
able difficulty AT present the claims seem 10 be re,
garded simply as those OF citizens Of the United
States, made through their government, for indem-
nifty for losses sustained BY such citizens In
quence Of the destruction on the high seas, Of
the. ground Of claim Is, broadly, that the
British government having permitted the
Is liable for the consequences But the fact that
the property DESTROYED was, at the time of It's
ground for the assumption that the property be-
longed to American citizens AS to the ship herself
merely technical sense. But few ships belong to q
single owner. Most ships have several, and some
have many owners, and 1t IS not very unusual for
the registered owner TO be subject OF one govern.
ment and one or more OF the real owners to be sub
jects or another.
Let it, however, be assumed that in every case the
vessel destroyed was the property OF American ci-
zens only. II Is known that in many IN
sroyed was the property 81 others and then. most
commonly, was the property of British subjects.
II Is clear then, frst that If Justice IS to be done
the supposed indemnify cannot be limited to the
formal owners, as distinguished from the real own
ers, nor even limited TO The latter, distinguished
acts in question: and second, that If the ground Of
claim be good as regards American citizens 1t can
property was destroyed under the mag OF the United
States. Yet TO admit tne claims thus broadly would
materially amer, increase the amount to be paid and
resulting benefit to British subjects Further 1t VIII
have to be considered whether these Claims are to
be affected In any way by the fact of the property
at risk having been In Il great majority OF cases
covered by insurance, ana by the owners having
consequently in such cases already long since re-
covered It's value from the underwriters. .
TO take the case, firsl, OF American citizens,
claimants to property insured by them with
underwriters,
tributOn OF the loss but II still fell upon American
cltizens. Then assume US may well have been the
fact that property strictly In this class yet par
TALLY insured by British Subjects they benz share
holders IN American insurance companies Stn the
compensation could hardly be deemed less due on
this account. And the case OF American property
wholly insured by British underwriters does not
appear to be readily distinguishabe from the pre-
cedlng cases. On the other hand, there are the
parallel cases OF British property insured wholly In
or wholly in Great Britain. None OF these. II con.
sldered with reference to the ground OF claim
to ne disenttled to the supposed indemnity, unless
the fact OF insurance is IN Itself TO be deemed TO bar
the claim.
1t is conceived, therefore, tnat in the event Of
these claims being admitted on any such ground rs
has yet been suggested. provision should be made
for including claims other tnan those Of American
citizens, and also for securing the payment OF the
indemnity TO the parties really entitled to IT, as hav-
ing sustained the losses In question.
But further question may not unfairly be raised.
Assume that given proportion OF the property de-
stroyed was covered by insurance In the United
States another proportion by insurance in France
derwrlters In all these countries are to be put on
the same footing Is It quite clear that any one Of
premium adequate IN his own opinion to the chance
OF loss. All premiums so received have been re.
premiums has exceeded the sum OF losses. This,
however, Is mot material. 1t Is matter OF adven-
ture and OF each underwriters private concern.
And az an underwater, he can no more claim to be
repaid his losses and yet to retain his premiums
Ihan any other dealer can Calm return Of goods
he has sold and also retain their price,
further, IL assumed That another part OF the
property destroyed was not insured. Then the
owner paid no premium OF Insurance. and, while his
neghbors did so pay and went into the market with
their goods at corresponding disadvantage he
escaped 1t and profited accordingly. In short, he
was his swn insurer, and cannot in tnat capacity
claim to he repaid. True, 1t may be alleged that
S g sS e %sn s
on the ground that the return OF the amount osG it
government, was fairly part OF the original caicu-
laton basing the premium. And II this view OF the
case case. ee sa admlted the the nnderwrer has a. least
make claim equally distinct, and the rest to be
excluded. is the net result Of the pecuniary ar
rangement to be handsome bonus to underwriters
to the exclusion OF other classes OF sufferersH
Then it may be asked, who did suffer and who
to the first part Of the question is obvious enough
All persons suffered in the first instance whose
an So far as he thay OF Ss
themselves OF the practice OF insurance, they
i suffered abou! equally, and the premiums
perty Of Uniied States citizens, and of others con-
nected with them IN business, was, during the
period in which such risk Of destruction endured,
that nag less readily obtained cargoes, and obtained
under other 1ags, at reduced price, 1t is also to
be remembered. however, that so large was the
the risk mat the incidence Of the new charge Of nsnr
ance was In effect to some extent sadded on other
than American property and neutral cargoes having
been thus conveyed at greater cost to market,
that extent sold at higher price. In other
words the transmission Of produce from the United
Cfofn f1E Enn md aYnAfn fhnrn
mitted to q new charge, this charge was at least
partially, In some instances betrayed by the con.
sumer and so spread over vast number OF
persons.
1t were endless to try to trace the effect Of the
all who suffered by IL; but is apparent that the re-
sultlng loss was In most cases. SO distributed
through the various channels OF trade. that first 1t
cannot be said TO have fallen exclusively the SUBJ
iecs OF any one Power, and second that any attempt
to assess the individual losses exactly must be
The only conclusion practical man can arrive at
is that as against the Northern States the naval e
some extent agerava;ed but that the pecnnarS eject
cannot now be traced to individuals, and II 1t were
SO traced would be found to have been by no means
The Pau MaU Gazette editorlally comments on the
as follows:-
The remarkable letter on the Alabama claims
which we publish to-day will come as surprise on
pexity Of ali modern international questions, ana
for the extreme difficulty OF dsposing OF them when
they are not abruptly cut by the brute violence OF
war. 1t Is likely that most people have assumed |
that there was end Of these claims as the
government OF Great Britain had offered to pay |
them and the government OF the United States had |
made up Its mind to take The money. Yet the true |
perplexies only begin at this point. 1t is extremely
hard TO find out who 1t was that suffered by the |
and when q guess has been made at the |
victims Of the depredatons they turn to be for
Jhe most part persons whom nobody wishes to COM
pensate and who have never asked for c0mpensa-
lion.
The writer OF the letter states fact not OF course
70 tinr uyhn hn fnlo thoN
ships belong to great number OF owners. The pro-
perty in ship Is divided into rather minute shares
rhe class which invests In this description of pro-
perty is not very large one as whole, but ii is
cosmopolitan; and the chances are that
not few part-owners OF the vessels captured by the
Confederate cruisers were Englishmen, aud some Of
hem Germans and Frenchmen. This is even more
ikey to have been the case with regard to the car
y0es for every conceivable variety OF interest," direct
Ind indirect absolute and qualified, Is found to
,xist In goods which have once been snipped and
{ Is really just as likely that the cargOes con.
lSCatpd lHrueQ were owned wholly