Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1872-12-07
disputed questions takes the position that this

( disputed questions takes the position that this
balance belongs to the underwriters and says:
England in the award of $B, 900, 900 pays
for the property destroyed to the parties hold
ing the title to that property, without regard
to the question of insurance, and 1t would be
positively disgraceful for our government to
withhold any portion of this money, upon
any plea of insurance. Because in the first
place. in justice there is no right to do it; and
in the second place, in equity, its non-pay-
ment would work to the direct disadvantage
of class of real sufferers, whose claims were
not allowed 1t will be recollected that the
Geneva arbitrators threw out the claims for
war premiums, as indirect. Still the payment
of war premiums was a serious loss to the
ship owners. Now the marine insurance COM
panies are mostly mutual, and any money
received by them will naturally in the pay
ment of scrip or dividends inure to the beneft
of the men who paid those war premiums.
Now it has been generally supposed that
England pays this sum to the United States
for the property destroyed, and equity would
require that our own government should pay
this sum to such of its citizens as actually
suffered the loss. The insurance companies
suffered no loss. They were paid by the sinp
owners in war premiums and the majority
of the companies made money in that bust
ness, that is, their war premiums were pad
largely in excess of their war losses, and if
the companies are again paid from this award
they will then be twice paid for the risk which
they took upon themselves.
These war premiums were very properly
~. boz a nh Tupy
were settling question between two govern
ments, and the only possible way for them to
arrive at the amount CT the damage to the
United States, was to take the value Of the
property actually destroyed. The fact that
citizen of Maine paid an insurance company in
Massachusetts a war premium Of thousand
or ten thousand dollars, did not furnish any
evidence to them of loss to the United
States. That transanction, per Sc, was not IN
fact loss to our government. II one men,
Der OF family or firm pay to another mem
Der of the same family or firm sum OF
money, no loss is suffered by the family or
firm, it is no poorer than before the transac-
ton. SO it will be perceived that these tran
sactions furnished no element of loss TOR con
sideraton between the two governments.
But when the question comes to the dlstTl-
button by the United States. then equity, JUS
tee, common sense and sound reason would
all seem to dictate that it should be distributed
among those parties who actually suffered the
loss and the matter Of war premiums enters
very largely into the question and forms an
element which legitimately belongs to and
should be considered in the distribution. The
Advertiser admits that the payment OF war
premiums was serious loss to ship own
ers, but consoles the owners with the
remark that they will receive remuneration
in part by the scrip or dividends of mu-
tual insurance companies if it can only be
paid to the companies. If the companies
were all mutual, instead of perhaps one-half,
if the same owners, and none others, now
patronized the companies, and ii all the ship
owners who insured took out and paid for a
war risk, then the consolation offered might
be eflicacious. As it is there are too many
''ifs" in the path to warrant expectation of
justice in any such round about sort of way.
Again the payment by England to the
Uuited States of damages for property des-
| troyed, is not in the nature of salvage which
The law gives to the underwater. The whole
transaction was simply this. Our government
said to Her Majesty's government, you are
indebted to us for damages done by rebel
privateers, which you permitted to fit out in
your ports. England replied, we are not liza
BILE for damages done by such vessels. The
England is not liable for the indirect damages,
but she must pay the direct damages, and then
having decided to award sum in gross, as a
matter of convenience and justice and as the
they took the value of the property (vessels)
actually destroyed, and awarded that sum to
the United States. 1t was for this purpose
and this alone that they considered the proof
vessels. And when this money is once paid
to the United States, the only question that
can enter into the distribution is, who con-
tributed in dollars and cents to that great sum?
That ascertained it is clearly the duty of the
government to distribute the award pro rata,
among the contributors. Maine is largely in
terested in this Her ship owners paid hun
dred of thousands of dollars in war premiums,
and it is to be hoped that they may have the
benefit of an equitable distribution of the
award. DISUM.