The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-04-02

were merchants vessels, the property Of
individuals and not of the government
The same was true of the property captur-
cd or destroyed therein. The only ground
Of claim which the United States preten.
ded TO have for money payment on &c.
count of these depredations, was because
tue property of her citizens was destroyed
1t is true that, at one time, large claim
was made for indirect or consequential
damages. but this WIS subsequently aban.
doned. If this claim had been persisted
in, and money award made therefor, the
money so awarded, when paid. would
probably have belonged to the United
States as such, because it would have been
impossible to have distributed 1t. But the
money awarded and paid, as we shall en-
dcavor to show, was really for specific in
dividu0l losses, the amounts Of which could
be easily ascertaincd. If so, 1t must fol-
low, among other things, that tho United
States holds the money, received on ac-
count Of the Geneva award, In trust, to he
IltlNl w Siltll VI nti tlllItllh us DnNt
losses
That this was the intent of the negota-
ting parties is evident from the terms of
the treaty itself. 1t provides for the ref
ercncc of the Alabama claims to Ger
tain arbitrator to be appointed in the way
and manner therein specified, and that this
tribunal may, IL it think proper, proceed
TO award a sum in gross to be paid by
Great Britain to the United States for all
the claims referred to it," If, however,
this course is not taken then Z board of
assessors was to be appointed who were
to examine and decide leach separate
claim presented to them; the gross
amount of which was to be paid to the
United States. With tie consent of our
government the award was actually made
in gross, without examining leach sepa-
rate claim. but this fact does not alter the
nature Of the case. The award of "gross
sum was bat awarding that which was
considered 10 he n rough estimate of the
amount Of leach separate claim, and as
such was received by the United States and
as such was intended. Now TO whom does
il belong Manfestly to tie losers. That
seems plain enough, but there does not
seem much prospect of the ship-owners
and property losers being able to prove
that they nave suffered any pecuniary loss
This is the argument, ami we regret TO say
that ii seems more than probable to pre-
vail--proyidcd always that the government
ever gives any one IN opportunity OF en-
deayoring TO prove that hr has lost any
thing. A claim j. made on the fund be-
cause vessel and lis cargo were
destroyed by the Alabama. The owner
ship, value and fact of destruction being
proven, the question will he asked were
you insured II thc an7wcris, aH in most
every case 1t must be, In the affirmative. his
claim is gone, because be I'M. suffered no
loss. The insurance company which paid
the policy then present their claim. They
are met with the reply that they received
higher rates Of premiums rs war risks,
and therefore instead Of losing made
money So by this arguing in q circle, it
is claimed that there has been No loss TO
anyone, and that when we took the gold
from Great Britain ,yc were simply ''pul-
ing wool over their eyes. This may all be
good law and sound reasoning, bat il is not
truth, justice or common sense. If q bill
should ever pass Congress looking TO the
distribution Of the Geneva Award, If we
may judge from the views expressed by
Senators and Representatives. It will be
difficult 10 ful successful claimant And
so the alabama Claims wli take their
place in history side BY side with the
"French Spoliation Claims.