The New York herald., 1878-12-14
The Geneva Award.

The Geneva Award.
One of the most difficult questions pend
ing before Congress relates to the undis-
tributed portion OF the Geneva award.
Nearly two-thirds of it remain in the
Treasury, and there are wide diversities of
opinion as to what should be done with
it. The amount awarded was SIS, 800, 900,
So, 677 060. OF course there is no lack
of claimants. The most energetic are
the insurance companies who rest their
claims on the long settled legal prin-
ciple that an underwater who has
paid loss on ships or merchandise
to the owner is entitled to whatever may be
received from the property. This claim of
the insurance companies is disputed on
various grounds. In the first place, it is
asserted that they suffered no real loss, as
they received q full compensation in their
war premiums. 1t is further asserted that
the government took especial pains not 10
make itself in any way liable to them in
the exertions it made to procure an award
in the form of gross sum. Secretary Fish
instructed the American Consul at Geneva
to avoid all committals as to the distri-
button of the award, inasmuch rs
''the government wishes to hold itself
free to decide as 10 the rights
and claims of insurers" This was o
clear announcement by the government Of
its intention not to be bound by the prin-
ciple of "subrogation" on which the in
surance companies are resting their claims.
Another reason for asking that the award
be made in gross sum, without any COM
initials as to its distribution, was to pre-
clude all subsequent grounds of complaint
by the British government as to what might
be done with the money.
We recovered damages only for American
property actually destroyed by the British
built cruisers. The particular ownership
of the property had nothing to do with
the justice Of the claim, as will be
clearly seen if we consider an individual
case. An insured American ship, the Brill
iant, was destroyed by the redoubtable
Alabama in 1862. It's owners were promptly
paid by the New York company which had
insured the ship and cargo, so the owners
lost nothing. The company lost this one
ship out Of hundreds they had insured
against war risks, and the premiums on the
others compensated the loss on the Brilliant
ten times over SO the company lost moth
ing. But the exemption from any loss
either by insurers or insured did not make
it any the less true that piece Of American
property was destroyed by quasi British
cruiser, and that the British government
was bound to pay for it. In exacting COM
pensation, our government took especial
care that the payment should be made to
itself and to keep itself entirely free as to
what it would do with the money. AS Sec
retary Fish said in his instructions, ''You
will be careful not to commit rs to the
disposition Of what may be awarded" It
was s'entirely question between the two
governments, as Mr.. Gladstone afterward
said in Parliament. Congress is under no
obligation to compensate the insurance
companies for losses which they never suf-
fered, and England has no right to inquire
what is done with money which was paid
for actual destruction Of property.
The law Of 1874 was intended to include
claims by parties who had suffered real
losses and whose right to compensation ad-
mitted of no question. 1t was not then
known how much of the award would be
required for this purpose, and other claims
were postponed until these were satisfied.
The remaining surplus is unexpectedly
large, and it is now the duty of Congress to
provide for its equitable distribution. The
bill of the majority Of the Judiciary Com
mittee of the House allows all claimants a
hearing before the Court Of Claims, with
right of appeal to the Supreme Court and
there is, perhaps, no better way of settling
the difficult questions involved than to
turn them over to the judiciary, to be de-
cided according to the principles Of
Justice, equity and the law of nations" un.
hampered by Congressional directions.