The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-01-28

served II the courts were left to distribute the
awards precisely as they would If private indt
vidual instead Of she government held this sum for
distribution. Each claimant could bring his suit
where he found It most convenient.
Mr.. Brainard OF New York, argued in favor Of in.
Gliding the losses by the Shenandoah before the
period fixed by the Geneva arbtrators. William
NJ. Eyarts argued in favor OF including in the dis
tribution OF the award the rights OF insurers who
have paid their losses. He occupied an hour. The
committee then adjourned until Friday TO give
him an opportunity to conclude ms remarks.
Mr.. Evarts, In the course OF his argument. re-
viewed the proceedings before the Geneva Tribu-
nal showing exactly what classes OF claims were
and what were not considered by it, and was
listened to with marked attention by the commit
tee from the TACT that he had been one of the
counsel for the government at Geneva. and his per-
sonal knowledge Of the deliberations OF that body
threw much hight upon the points used in his ar
gument.
Mr. Evarts argued that the subj ect OF the Geneva
award had been so much discussed that the
troversy narrowed to well defined dImen.
sions. He represented very large interests-of
those uninsured well as of insurance companies
who had become assgnees OF owners whom they
had insured Passing by the question Of the met lod
OF distributing the fund the questions to be dis
cussed were What was the action OF the govern
point of the Geneva awardY What was 1t up to
the framing OF the treaty. How is 1t dealt with In
the treaty. How presented by the government as
promoters OF the litigation, and then how disposed
of BY the tribunal 1t was conceded on all hands
that Great Britain was not in the position OF an
enemy the ally Of an enemy. Our losses were
occasioned by the omission or neglect OF the SUBJ
jects Of friendly nation TO guard that friendship
properly and the claims for these losses brought
to the attention Of the government OF the
United States for adjustment by that
government with the government Of friendly
Power. The insurance companies happen to be
the first parties who presented claims Of this
character to our government They were received
and transmitted to our Minister as private claims
of citizens suffering from injuries, for which this
government lnterposed its good offices with Great
Britain for indemnity. They were rejected by
Great Britain on the ground that they admitted
relation to the transaction Of the COnfed-
crate cruiser. and would not entertain any
claims either on the part Of insurance COM
panies or OF original losers. When our govern
ment was pressing these claims England it adj
vertised for all sufferers to present their claims
that 1t might take charge OF them, ana they were
collected and filed In the State Department and
the government acted as the agent OF It's citizens
in pressing them upon the notice and action Of
ment OF two Conventions-the Johnson Clarendon
Convention and the Johnson-Stanley Con-
vention-with the intention Of submitting
these claims private claims to the
adjudication Of a mixed commission which
should also entertain the claims of British
subjects who suffered during the war; for which
our government also a friendly Power, should
be responsible TO Great Britain If the Convention
had sat and adjudicated claims there can be no
question that the respective government would
have paid its awards to the citizens Of the other in
satisfaction of their claims as private citi zens but
that treaty was rejected manly upon the
ground that our public complaints against Eng
land were not entertained, and under the infu
OF those complaints all negotiations were sus-
pended until, prompted by a message from the
President, the subject was resumed. and the result
was the treaty under which this award was made
at Geneva. II there had been an award under the
former treaty 1t certainly would have been an ad-
judication OF private claims and nothing else, and
how 1t be said that this award OF the Geneva
Tribunal differs from what the other would have
beenY
The government is appealed to in order to adopt
q course of reasoning that makes this fund wholly
at it's disposal as a bounty. II that is So and the
claimants have no rights, then the MANNED SOL
ders and sailors are much greater claimants than
the insured or uninsured merchants II we had
undertaken TO treat our case with England as if
she had been beligerent, and not friendly
Power, what are now called indirect claims
would have been the dlrectest claims
in the world, and these private claims
nothing but subsidiary and incidentally augment
ing claims bus our claims were made upon the
basis that there was a governmental negligence
on the part OF England whereby friendship was
abused and neutrality violated, and we presented
under that relation these private claims as the
incidents and the circums tances under which rep
aration should be made, and we inserted phrases
in the treaty which covered general claim, and,
they said limited us substantially to these pri
vate claims. We went to Geneva without having
withdrawn our claims in the least and our
counsel argued every one Of the indirect
claims to the best OF their ability, among which
was the claim for war premiums whereupon
Great Britain, through her counsel, objected to
going on with the arbitration, and moved an ad-
journment and the arbitrator were OF opinion
that these premiums and insurance and the cost
OF the war and Of the injury to commerce were not
subjects that, on the principles Of international
law, could be considered between nations in this
relation Our government under that Judgment,
decided that it would not further insist upon any
Of these heads Of complaint or Of indemnity from
that time forward. Not word was said by our
government In the Tribunal on the subject o. war
premiums.
Proposed Legislation for Prevention of
improper and Unlawful Use Of the
American Flag.
The House Committee on the Judiciary have now
under consideration the resolution introduced by
General Butler, instructing them to inquire and
report whether, under existing laws, the courts OF
the United States have adequate Jurisdiction and
authority to prevent and punish the improper
of the flag and national character OF the United
States on board merchant vessels on the high
seas or in foreign ports; and furthermore, to in
quire and report ifany, and, If so, what additional
legislation by Congress is expedient or necessary
to punish persons who fraudulently obtain, ille
gally use marine documents creating vessels Of
the United States, and to punish officers OF the
government who careessly or corruptly issue such
documents and also to Inquire and report If any
and what legislation is needed to enable military,
naval or consular officers of this government to