New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-12-25
ENGLISH VIEW OF "THE AVARD.n

ENGLISH VIEW OF TIE AWARD"
English court pamphlets just received bring
n decision of the Honse of Lords which ha S
an interesting bearing on the familiar claim of
Insurance companies that paid fCf-vessels or
cargoes destroyed by rebel cruisers, to receive
reimbursement out of the Geneva Award.
Readers will remember that many of the ships
which suffered from the maritime depIedatIOns
of the Alabama and her sister pirates were in
slIred against waT-risks; and that before the
treaty OF Washington was formed the com
panies had paid their policies. Under the
treaty and the subsequent arbitration at Gene
va, $500 900 was paid by Great Britain into
the United States Treasury at Washington, in
liquidation of all claims for the failure to en-
force her neutrality laws which enabled the
offending vessels to make the cruises and do the
mischief. An act of Congress soon afterward
passed directed Iartial distribution of the
money among those owners of vessels and ear
goes whose losses were still unsatisfed But
az to owners who had received insurance
money, it has been a stOuty disputed question
whether the award money ought to 20 TO The
owners or to the insurers For tho insurance
companies it has been earnestly claimed that
the United States in prosecuting The arbitIa-
ton undertook to collect their claims and
that the arbitratOrs expressly allowed them (:
and therefore that SO much of the fund as was
awarded on this ground belonged Of right TO
the companies, and ought to he promptly dis
tIibuted among them; or, if il is not to be-
then it WAS obtained from Great Britain 10y
Misrepresentation Or mistake, and ought to be
refunded to her.
The House Of Lords case involved very nearly
this question. The facts were that cargo
of tobacco insured in an English company, was
destroy ed by the Alabama, and the company
paid the loss according to its policy. Later, the
owners of the cargo IecO gercd a sum for The loss
under the early act OF Congress providing for IL
distribution among owners. The insurance com
pany then sued the owners, IN England, for the
amount, claiming that the money awarded was
in law a substitute for the tobacco, and that the
insurers were entitled to il just as they would
have been TO remnants of the tobacco if any had
been found in short urging the familiar argu-
ments of insurers in tins country.
But the Court OF Appeal decided against the
claim and the House of Lords has affirmed tle
Judgment The opinions agree that the award
was not collected by the United States acting
az attorney for specific claimants, but was
round sum given 10y Great Britain to the
United States, in satisfaction of our Ma
tional complaint against her; and that
the money when received here belonged to
the United States, to be used according to
the pleasure OF the Government the owners
took it as a free gift, rot as proceeds of claim
in which underwriters had an interest. Lord
SelbOrne says that the insurers have no other
right than they can deduce from the ACT of Con-
gress directing distribution that the distribu-
ton is correctly described as an act of pure gift
from tho American Government our Govern
ment having absolute power of disposition over
the fund. Lord Blackburn says that the dis
tribution of the award was not payment made