The Portland daily press., 1882-05-15

must come right to the principles of legislation;
| we must dictate and determine the principles
upon which this award shall be distributed.
| While the report of the minority of the COM
mittee in this case undertakes to argue that
| there ought to be court, If it argues anything
it argues that this money ought to go to the in
surance companies. And [ may be asked
| why should it not? The answer is very plain
The history of these insurance companies
shows beyond dispute that they charged to
| those who went to them for war risks (and
mind you, the war risks were kept distinct and
separate from the others) such sum as would
not only enable them to recoup every dollar
they paid out but to make from 35 to 40 per
cent. dividend besides And now they ask us
to pay the very amount OF money in considera-
ton of which they actually obtained 80 per
cent. dividend. l say that is of itself and per
Sc an absurdity and that anybody who under
takes to advocate that doctrine has got to face
the idea that the doctrine of subrogation, which
at best was only a doctrine of odds and ends,
has got to be applied to the case of recoupment
all along the line and they must make law
to do it.
Now, these gentlemen, in order to escape re-
sponsibility, say, let us go to court. l say the
court will decide in favor of the insurers or it
will not If it will not decide in favor of the
insurers, then that is the way that Congress al
ways has decided and will decide again. If it
will decide in favor of the insurance companies
then l say that l do not want to give them a
chance to do that. That is very simple and
plain. We are the law-making power; and we
must move in this matter before anybody can
touch this money. If we make provisions for
its distribution, we must lay down just princi-
pies which shall guide the distribution.
Now, the first class of people to whom we
ought to do justice is the class injured by the
exculpated cruisers Why? Because the United
States foraits own purposes insisted upon o
more lax definition of the rule, which speaks of
due diligence" it did this for Tvs own interest
hereafter. Therefore, these exculpated cruis-
| ers to large extent escaped. You may accept
| or you may not accept the argument made by
the Senator from Vermont, at a previous ses-
| sion of Congress, that 1T is the duty OF Con-
| gress to protect American commerce on the
| seas, and that we can use this money for that
| purpose.
We provide next that the ar-premium men
shall receive their portion of this money. Why
| do we SO provide? will state the argument
| which use upon this subject When we made
| payments for vessels that we're destroyed, If a
mans vessel was worth $4,000 and it was in.
sured for $50, 900 and he obtained his insurance
money, then instead of paying him 10000 we
| paid him only $4,000. Why did we not pay
| him the other $4,000? Simply because we
| were unwilling that any man should be paid
twice. so the $30, 600 was saved to the fund
| and is there now.
I Do you say that this should be paid to the In
surance companies? l answer, no; the insur
ance men have already got back that $4,000
with 80 per cent. besides. Where did they gel
it? From the war-premium men. These in
surance companies charged so immense pre-
MUM that when they got through they had &C
tually recouped their loss and paid themselves
80 or 40 per cent premium on their business.
Why should they be paid more? If they ev
er contemplated repayment by Great Britain
and, while they SO contemplated it charged
premiums SO huge that they could pay all the
losses and have 30 per cent. over, they mus
have been extortioners with express malice
| afOr1th0upht. Paid 0pca with aDlaudid nrQfitg
why should they come again? Simply because
| incorporated man has courage sublime
enough to put the natural man to an opel
shame; unincorporated man is satisfied to b.
paid once; how many payments would satisf,
incorporated man human experience has no
yet decided.
1t can easily be seen where that money thu
saved to the fund came from. 1t came from
war premiums. 1t came Immediately from tb
insurance companies; but it came ultimatel,
from the war-premium men. Now why shoult
not these men have their money back? 1t
their identical money which has increased tn
amount of the fund. Why should they no
have itP 1t seems to me the question is to-
simple and clear to need discussion.
But it is sometimes said, in opposition to tn
proposition not to give any thing to the insur
ance companies, why do you investigate tn
business of the insurance company and not thu
business OF the ship owner? Perhaps the ship
| owner in the long run made money Perhap
freghts" Such an argument shows lack o
knowledge OF how business is done. What ike
the price of freight is not what it costs mai
to furnish it; it is what the bulk OF other PEG
pie are willing to furnish it for, Just as in man
ufactures the price is not fixed by what 1t cost
to manufacture the article, but what the man
most favorably situated can manufacture it for
i if he can manufactured sufficient quantity t.
| supply the market
Now for every American bottom that was OF
fered for freight there were offered two Eng
lish bottoms that did not have to pay war pre-
miums. Gentlemen must see at once that eYei
at the same price the English bottom woult
have the advantage. Why? Because mel
put cargoes on ships for transportation, not t,
get insurance. They want the cargo to e.
| somewhere, and they give preference to yes
sci that will carry it to the destination over /
vessel that might land it in the cluiche s of
Confederate cruiser. Hence it was absolutely
| impossible for any American ship owner tx
add the war premium on his vessel to thu
freight that he charged, because he was il
| close com petition with men who had no wal
premium to pay.
But hasten to conclusion, because prom
ised to occupy but very short time now
Though hope to answer hereafter any point
which may be made on the other side. Let mt
recapitulate the leading facts. First, this wal
an affair between nations. This is proved BY
the testimony of all parties and by the decision
of the tribunal itself. Second, it was an at
fair so combining diplomacy and damage thai
it cannot be settled as pure question OF dam
age alone. In order to distribute this money
| which was paid us in lump, there must be
legislation. In order that there may be legis
lation, we must establish the principle upor
which the distribution shall take place, and
the objection to referring the question to a
| court is simply that the court would
| have no principle upon which to de-
eide it. If it should decide in favor of the
insurance companies, that is decision we dc
| not want if it should not decide it that way
! we are capable of settling the question our.
selves. We settle then the principle that this