The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-22

The muddle on this subject has grown out
Of q notion that our government is bound to
pay out the whole amount of the award to
claimants in order to vindicate its honor.
1t has even been contended that we are
bound to return to Great Britain the residue'
if there should be any, which remains after
satisfying tho just demands of ship owners
and insurance companies. This is whim-
steal idel. The Geneva award was
made en- bloc and left to be distributed by
our government on equitable principles.
The British government has no right to in
quire what disposal we make Of it. tri-
bunal in which her side Of the case was fully
presented decided that she was bound to
make reparation for the actual damage done
by the Confederate cruisers fitted out in her
ports. The Geneva tribunal acted on an
authentic list of the ships destroyed, and the
award included compensation for no
damages which were not proved to have been
really done to American ships and cargoes.
With the particular ownership of the prop
can, she had nothing to do, and never made
any pretence that she had 1t was proved
before the Geneva tribunal that certain
amount of American property had been de-
stroyed, and the Court decided that the
British government was answerable for its
value. We made claim for no losses which
we did not actually suffer, and the Court, in
its award of damages, left us--our govern
ment-entirely free as to the manner
in which we would dispose of the
money. Great Britain paid for no property
which the cruisers did not destroy, and,
having settled no fictitious damages, she
has no title TO complain whatever it may
the award
In distributing the award Congress is, of
course, bound by principles of equity. IN
insured shipowners who lost their property
are entitled to full compensation Insured
owners are entitled to nothing if
the insurance fully covered the loss.
Whether the insurance companies have
a valid claim is question which may be de-
cided with almost as little difficulty. If
their business was conducted on correct
principles they reimbursed themselves by the
war rates which they charged. Having lost
nothing they are not entitled to any compen-
sation. 1t is absurd to apply the ordinary
law Of salvage to case SO dissimilar. When
o vessel is insured against wreck the COM
pany contemplates the possibility of salvage
and regulates its rates accordingly.
But in insuring against war risks the
companies did not act on any expectation
that our government would recover dam
ages, and they looked only to the war pre-
miums for reimbursement. Having lost
nothing they are entitled to no part of the
award. What, then, shall be done with it?
Practically, this may be difficult ques-
ton to answer, but in principle it is very
easy. The same rule is to be followed as in
the case Of domestic property to which there
are no heirs. The constitution of New York,
for example, provides that such property shall
escheat to the State, and by the same just
rule that part OF the Geneva award to which
there are no equitable claimants escheats to
the federal Treasury. What disposal the
federal government shall make of it is a
question on which we may have an opinion
to offer at a future time, but our only object
at present is to expose the absurdity of sup
posing that it must be either paid to the in
surance companies or returned to Great
Britain.