The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1874-04-04
The Geneva Award.
ARGUMENT BrrOur nrr JUDICIARY coSxsfd

The COMMITTEES on the Judiciary Of the T.. :. Hen-
ate on FEB. 81 had before them the qu@&n Of the
Alabama claims. Mr.. Dudley Field addressed the
committee la behalf OF the Columbus Insurance Cow
pauy. which @ilei on the 22d Of January 1906.
owing to debts " q very large amount, aud having
means 60 pay bat a small amount Of ihc sndebteiness
The pris cipai asset. sud the one that was most relied
on was the Alabama clim. The company had paid
away 60 insurancers unSer war risks a very large
sum Of money for losses arriving directly from sets Of
vessels hostile 10 the United States during the late
var. OF this sum about s632,co vas due 70 the
acts Of the Alabama. Florida anc Shenandoah. the
three vessels which were selected by the Oeneya fri-
bunal as teing those for whose ravagrs an Indemnity
should be paid. The amount upCn these vessels
alone, including interest. would, therefore, amount
at presen, 10 s sum which may be stated Is SloQ.-
00O.Oo0. Mr.. Field maintained that the vessels and
their cargoes Destroyed BY the Alabama cruisers
were insured against loss by capture. The var risk
was assumed by the underwriters, and they having
paid the original owners the full value Of the prop
erty Destroyed, IL seemed but Just they should ~
eeive whatever might be saved. No principal Of Law
was better settled than in such a case, the under
writer is subrogaied 10 all the rights Il the assured.
These very claims were presented 20 the IN
OF Arbitration Of Geneva, ~ n part q those which
Great Britain was called upon 10 pay. They are 20
be found in the printed book containing the proofs
which were laid before that august tribunal which de-
creed that interest should be allowed and Il awarded a
gross sum which covered The rest Of the claims sub
mitted TO il. with interest, and Of these claims allowed
n CcnelucfaDtc proportion conttte1 OF the Cialfne OF
the Columbia Insurance Company.
1t was true that the money paid by Grea, Britain
cannot be recovered back by the government Of that
country, aud that. therefore. the feelings or sent
nents Of the English people ars NOS sbsoiutely hind
ing upon US, but that there was q Widespread feeling
in that nation that il would be unjns. to distribute
this fund in any way other than that contemplated
by the tribunal Is undoubted. Mr.. Field maintained
that the ends Of justice would be best sabservedj IL
the courts were left TO distribute the awards precisely
as they would IL . private individual Instead Of ths
government held this sum for distribution. Each
claimant could bring his suit where he found IL most
convenient. ahammH
Mr.. Brainerd, Of New York, argued In favor OF in
GLIDING the losses by the Shenandoah before the
period fixed by the Geneva arbitrator. rtffH
Mr.. Evarts argued that the subject OF the Geneva
award bad been so much discussed that the con
troversy was narrowed to well-deaned dimensions.
lie represented very large interests, OF those min
sured as well rs OF insurance companies, who had Z
become ~assignees OF owners whom they had in
sured. Passing by the question of the method OF
distributing the fund, the questions 20 be discussed
were What was the action Of the government In
regard to private claims up 90 the point OF the
Geneva award what was IL up Ia the framing OF
the treaty how Is IL dealt with In the treaty how
presented by the government az promoters OF the
litigation, and then how disposed of by the tri-
bunalf IL was conceded on all hands that Great
Britain was not In the position of an enemy, nor
the ally OF an enemy. Our losses were occasioned
by the omission or neglect Of the subjects % n
friendly nation to guard that friendship properly.
and the claims Of these losses are brought 10 the
attention Of the government Of the United States
for adjustment by that government with the gov
eminent OF n friendly power. The insurance com-
panies happen TO be the first parties who presented
claims Of this character 10 our government. They
were received and transmitted TO our Minister as
private claims Of citizens suffering from injuries,
for which this government interposed it's good
Offices with Great Britain fer indemnity. They
were rejected by Great Britain. on the ground that
they admitted no relations TO the transactions OF
the Confederate cruisers, and would not entertain
any claims either on the part OF the insurance com
panies or Of original losers. When our govern
ment was pressing these claims on England.1t adj
vertised for all sufferers 10 present their claims,
that it might take charge OF them. and they were
collected and dled In the State Department, ahd
the government acted as the agent OF its citizens
in pressing them upon the notice and action of
Great Britain. The result OF this was the appoint
ment of two conventions-the Johnson-C Clarendon
and the Jobnson-Stanley eonventions-wiih the
intention OF submitting these claims as private
claims TO the adjudication Of a mixed commission,
which shall also entertain the claims of British
subjects who suffered during the war, for which
be responsible to Great Britain.
If the convention had sat and adjudicated the
claims there can be no question that the respective
governments would have paid its awards TO the citi-
zens Of the other in satisfaction of their claims as
private citizens, but that treaty was rejected mainly
upon the ground that our public complaints against
England were not entertained, and under the inhu-
eDce OF these complaints all negotiations were sns-
pended until, prompted by n message from tAe Pres
ident, the subject was resumed. and the retalt was
the treaty under which this award was mnde ut 0e-
neya. If there had been an award under the former
treaty it certainly would have been an adjudication
of private claims and nothing else, and how can IL
be said that this award Of the Geneva Tribunal diff
fers from what the other would have beenH The
government is appealed to in order to adopt a course
Of reasoning that makes this fund wholly at its dis
posal as n bounty. If that lie 30, and the claimants
have no rights, then the manned soldiers and sailors
are much greater claimants than the insured or UNI
insured merchants. If we had undertaken 10 treat
our case with England as IL she had been a belliQer-
ent and not q friendly power, what are now calied
indirect claims would have been the directest claims
In the world. aud these private claims nothing but
and incidentally augmenting claims, but
our claims were made upon the basis that there was
governmental negligence on the part Of England,
whereby friendship was abused and neutrality viola
and presented under that relation those private
claims as the incidents and the circumstances under
which reparation should be made. and we inserted
phrases in the treaty which covered a general claim,
and, as they said, limited us substantially to. these
private claims.
We went to Geneva without having Withdrawn our
in the least, and our counsel argued every one
Of the indirect claims 70 the best Of their ability,
among which was the claim for war premiums.
Great Britain, through her counsel, OBJ
iected to going on with the arbitration and moved an
and the arbitrators were Of opinion
these premiums and insurance., and the cost Of
The war, and Of the injury TO comrserce,s wep~5ssr~
subjects that. On the principles Of international law,
Gould be considered between nations in this relation.
Dur government, under that judgment, decided that
I would not further insist upon any Of these deeds of
complaint, nor Of indemnity from that time forward.
Not a word was said by our government In the trib-
NAL on the subject Of war premiums.
y We clip the following from the New York
of February 2Ist;
THE HYDRoGRAPHIc OFFICE AND NORTH PACIFIC
EXPLoRATIoE-A LEGISLATIVE OUTRAGE Is 10 be