Birmingham state herald., 1896-06-07

De. uSeIul ana pertinent.
 It is believed somewhat the fashion in interested quarters to speak of the fail ure by the government to pay these claims as such neglect as amounts to fepudiation by the government and a denial. of justice to citizens who have suffered. Of course the original claim ants have for years been beyond the reach of belief; but as their descendants in each generation become more numer- ous the volume of advocacy importantly and accusation correspondingly in- creases. If injustice has been done in the refusal of these claims 1t began early in the present century, and may be charged against men then in public life more conversant than we can be with the facts involved, and whose honesty and sense of right ought to be secure from suspicion.
 As early as 1902 a. committee of the house of representatives, reported the facts connected with these claims, but apparently without recommendation. No action was taken on the report. In 1903 resolution declaring that indemnity ought to be paid was negatived by vote of the same body. favorable com mittee report was made in 1907, but 1t seems that no legislative action resulted. In 1918 an adverse report was made to the senate, followed by the passage of resolution declaring that the relief asked by the memorialists and petition CTS ought not to be granted" In 1922 and again in 1925 adverse committee re- ports on the subject were made to the house, concluding with similar resolu- tions.
 The presumption against these claims arising from such unfaVorable reports and resolutions and from the failure of congress to provide for their payment at a time so near the events upon which they are based cannot be destroyed by the interested cry of injustice and neg lect of the rights of our citizens.
 Until 1846 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, a bill was passed for their ascertainment and satisfaction, and $5,000,000 was appropriated for their payment. This bill was vetoed by Pres ident Polk, who declared that he could "perceive no legal or equitable ground upon which this appropriation can rest. This veto was sustained by the house or representatives.
 Nine years afterward, and in 1855, an- other bill was passed similar to the one last mentioned and appropriating for the settlement of these claims like sum or money. This bill was also vetoed, Presi- dent Pierce concluding thorough dis cussion of it's demerits with these words, "In view of what has been said there would seem to be no ground on which to raise a liability of the United States unless it be the assumption that the United States are to be considered the insurer and the guaranteer Of all claims of whatever nature which any individual citizen may have against as foreign na- tion." This veto was also sustained by the house.
 I think it will be found that in all bills proposed for the payment of these, claims the sum to be appropriated for that pur- pose did not exceed $5,000,000. It is now estimated that those already passed upon, with those still pending for exami- nation in the court Of claims, may amount to $25, 100000. This indicates eith- CT that the actual sufferers, or those nearer tu them in time and blood than the present claimants, underestimated their losses or that there has been great development in the manner of their presentation.
 Notwithstanding persistent efforts to secure payment from the government and the importantly of those interested, no appropriation has ever been made for the purpose except a little more than $l,- 300 900, which was placed in the general deficiency bill in the very last hour or the session of the congress on March 5, 1891.
 In the long list of beneficiaries who are provided for in the bill now before me, on account of these claims, 152 represent the owners of ships and their cargoes, and 1S6 those who lost as insurers of such vessels or cargoes.
 These insurers, by the terms of their policies, undertook and agreed 'to bear and take upon themselves all risks and perils of the seas, men of war, hre, en- emies, rovers, thieves, jettison, letters of maruue and counter marque, sur prsals, takings at sea, arrests, re- straints and detainments of all kings, princes or people of what nation, condi- tion or quality whatsoever"
 The premiums received on these po1i- cies were large and the losses were pre- cisely those within the contemplation Of the insurers. It is well known that the business of insurance is entered upon with the expectation that the premiums received will pay all losses and yield a profit to the insurance company in ad- dition, and yet without showing that the business did not result in profit to those insurance claimants, it is proposed that the government shall indemnity them against the precise risks they un- dertook, notwithstanding the fact that the money appropriated is not to be paid except by way of gratuity-payments as of grace and not of right"
 The appropriations to indemnify against insurance losses rest upon weak CT grounds, it seems to me, than those Of owners, but in the light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding these spoliation claims, as they are claimed, none of them, in my opinion, should be paid by the government.
 Another item in this bill, which seems to me especially objectionable, is an ap- propriation in favor of Charles F. Cho- teau, survivor, etc., of $174, ,445.75 in full satisfa ctions of all claims arising out of the construction of the ironclad steam battery Etiah.
 The contract for the construction of this battery was made by the government with Charles w. McCord during the war, and he was to be paid therefor the sum of $3S6, ,000 He was paid this sum and $21Q,- 991 for extras, and in May, 1866, gave his receipt in full. The assignee of McCord in bankruptcy assigned to Choteau and his associates In 1868 all claims of McCord against the United States for the precise extras for which he had receipts in full two years before. Choteau brought suit in the court of claims for such extras and was defeated. I cannot gather from the facts have been able to gather concern ing this appropriation that it is justified on any ground
 In 1891 my immediate predecessor ve- toed bill allowing the matter to be ex- amined again by the court of claims.
 If the additional payment proposed in this bill was made, the cost of the battery in olIestion would be almost double that