The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-06-07
And when 1t is alleged that the aban-
Comment of these claims against Fra nee


was in consideration of great benefits
TO the Government II Is as confidently
alleged that they were in point OF fact
abandoned because their enforcement
was hopeless. and that even IL any bene-
fit really accrued to us by insistence
upon their settlement In the course Of
diplomatic negotiations. such result gave
no pretext for taxing the Government
with liability to the claimants.
Wtsthout noticing other considerations
and contentious arising from the alleged
origin of these claims, o brief reference
to their treatment in the past and the de-
velopment OF their presentsltion may be
useful and pertinent
1t Is believed somewhat the fashion in
interested quarters, to speak Of the fail
ure by the government ito pay these
claims to such neglect as amounts to re-
pudia,tion by THE government and
denial of the justice to citizens who have
suffered. OF course the original claim
ants have for years been beyond THE
reach of relief: but as their descendants
In each generation become more nume-
rous the volume OF advocacy, importuni-
by and accusation correspond dinghy in,
creases. If injustice has been done sn
the refusal of theae claims, IL began early
In the present century and may be charg-
ed against men then in public more
conversant than we can be. with the
facts involved, and whose honesty and
sense of night ought to be secure from
suspicion.
AS early as 1902 committee of the
House of Representatives reported the
facts connected with there claims but
apparently withoua Recommendation. No
action was taken on the report In 1903
resolution declaring that indemnify
ought to be paid was negatived by a vote
Of the same body. A favorable commit
tee report was made in 1907, but II seems
ND bO,fN 1ne lnAt tt.a, ,-t{z
1873 an adverse report was made to the
Senate. followed by the passage of n
resolu ion declaring that the relief
asked by the memorialists and petition
ers ought not to be granted" In 1922
and again in 1926 adverse committee
reports on the subject were made to the
House concluding wiilJ similar resolu-
tions. The presumption against these
claims arising from such unfavorahle
reports and resolutions and from the fail
ure OF Congress to provide for their pay
ment at a time so near the events upon
which they are based, cannot be de-
stroyed by the interested cry OF injustice
and neglect of th: rights or our citizens.
Until 1886 these claims were from time
TO time pressed upon the attention OF
Congress with varying fortunes, but
never with favorable legislative action
In that year, however. bill was passed
fpr their ascertainlnent and satisfaction
aHu iiNe Ol were apprO-
priated for their payment. This bill was
vetoed by President Polk who declared
that he could perceive no legal or equi-
table ground upon which this appro-
prtation can rest" This veto was up
held by the Congress.
l think IL will be found that In all
bills proposed for TIN: payment of these
cialms. the sum to be appropriated for
that purpose did not exceed Ave million
dollars 1t Is now estimated that those
alr:ady passed with those still
pending for examination in the Court of
Claims, may amount TO twenty-five mil
lions of dollars. This indicates either
that The actual sufferers or those nearer
to them in time and blood than the pres
ent claimants, underestimate their
losses. or that there has been great
developments lin the manner OF their
DreseEta ton.
Notwithstanding persistent efforts to
secure payment from the government
and the importantly of those interested,
no appropriation has ever besn made for
that purpose. except q little more than
81 5000 which was placed in the gsn-
eral deficiency bill in the wsry last hours
of the session of Congress on March 3,
1891.
In the long liss of heneficiaries who
are provided for in the bill now befora
me. on account of these claims. one
hundred and fifty represent the owners
of ships and their cargoss and one hum
dred and eighty-six OF those who insured
the same.
These insurers, by the terms of their
policies, undertook and agreed Ito bear
and take upon themselves all risks and
perils of the seas. men-of-war fire, enc
mics. roveis. thieves, jettison, letters
OF mart and countermart. surprisals,
takings at sea, arrests, restraints and
detainments of all kinds, princes or peo-
ple of what nation, condition or quality
whatsoever"
The premiums received on these poll
cies were large, and the losses were
precisely those within the contemplation
of the insurers. 1t Is we'll known that
the business of insurance is entered
upon with the expectation that the pre-
miums Will pay all losses and yield a
profit in addition; and yet, without
showing that the business did not re-
suit in profit to those insurance claim
ants. 1t is proposed that the Govern
ment shall indemnify them against the
precise risks they undertook. notwith-
standing the fact that the money ap-
propIiated is not to be paid except "by
way OF eratuity-payment as OF grace
and not Of right"
The appropriations to indemnify
against Insurance and loss, rest upon
weaker grounds. 1t seems to me, than
those of owners. but in the light OF all
the facts and circumstances surround
ing these spoliation claims, as they are
claimed. none of them, in my opinion.