New-York tribune., 1882-04-11

nroofs of their losses 10 the State Department.,
and formal demand was made upon inc
British Government for indemnity. Ihis ana
snbseouent claims of the insurance companies
were classed by the State Department with the
actual losses of vessels and cargoes as direct
claims, and formed the basis OF the Geneva
Award. Mr.. Lathers furnishes from the Dip
lomatic correspondence, the pleadings and the
decision. incontestable proofs that the under
writer's losses were recognized 10y the two Gov
ernments, the counsel and the arpitraoors as
individual claims for indemnity, ana not as
national losses. The indirect claims were
ruled out, and the sum OF $lo,oOo,oVV WAS
awarded as an indemnity for actual losses sus-
tanned by owners and underwriters through
the capture of ninety -four vessels and their
carcoes by the inculpated cruisers. MI.
Iatbers contends that this indemnity for indi-
yldual losses cannot become the property OF
the Government because 1t was awarded unuer
treaty that the unexpended balance belongs
to-day to the direct claimants and cannot DO
given to any class of indirect claimants nor pe
retained by the General Government except On
the despoilers theory.
Without following the argument on the ques-
ton of subrogaticn of the insurers to the rights
of the insured, we may express hearty concur
renee in the general conclusions of the pam
phlet relative to the underwriters claims. AT
various stages of this controversy, and espe-
cally in 1876. when the Judiciary Committee
under the inspiration of General Butter adVo-
Gated with unblushing eflrontery the same
principles of spoiatiOn, we have expresseu
conviction that the insurance companies were
entitled as direct claimants to their share in the
award and that the Government had no
right to withhold the money and give 1t IN
stead to indirect claimants whose losses were
ruled out at Geneva. We have no disposition
70 renew the argument. Above everything IN
importance is the necessity Of doing SOmethin9
The money was awarded and paid as an IN
demnity for actual losses and so long as any
portion of it lies in the Treasury the country Is
discredited. Certainly something should be
done to rescue the United States Government
from the unfortunate plight OF having con-
sented to present the claims of its citizens anu
of having accepted IN trust an award for dam
ages, while it cannot or Will not discover the
people who have suffered loss.
The strongest point in Mr.. Lathers's pam
phlet is the recommendation that the claims OF
the underwriters, war-premlum men ana
Others should he referred to the United States
Courts for judicial decision. This course has
met with the hearty approval OF the Boards OF
Trade of Baltimore and Philadelphia, and COM
mends itself to every unprejudiced mind. The
assumption of the majority of the Judiciary
Committee that precedents, analogies and logic
will impair the decisions of the Judiciary is
reflection upon the Supreme Court, if not also
upon the intelligence of the country. Year
after year legislative committees have daw-
died with this subject, playing fast and loose
with the national honor. The whole mass OF
outstanding claims might wisely be referred
to the jurisdiction of United States Court with
provisions for final appeal to the Supreme
tnIIr