Year: 1873

think marine insurance companies never maid
better dividends than during that period They
| did not lose by the depredations of the rebei
cruisers, but rather on the whole gained by
reason of the increased premiums resultinS
from the fear of such depredations If there Is
any class who have reason TO complain it is the
ship-owners, for careful analysis Of the SUBJ
ject will show that the loss not only of the war
premiums on vessels, but on cargoes, fell upon
this class; and have prepared an amendment
which hope I may be permitted to offer, to
come in at the end of line fifty seven, page
D, proviiing for the repayment of the war risks
pad upon cargoes as well as upon vessels, to
the owners of the vessels in which such car
goes were shipped, instead Of to the owners of
the cargoes. 1t is true that in the first in
stance the premiums were paid by the owner of
the cargo, but it is also true that he received
the equivalent of that premium in the reduced
rate of freights which vessels subjected to such
war risks were obliged to accept


To illustrate; an American vessel liable to
destruction and subject to the war risk was in
direct competition for business with the neutral
vessels of the world which were exempt from
such risk. As consequence the American
vessel was obliged to reduce the rates Of freight
upon its cargo, SO that with the war risk added,
the shipper would have topay no more than
by the neutral vessel. In other words, the rate
OF freights by an American vessel must be a.
low, including all insurance, as by the neutral
vessel, or the cargo would be shipped in the
neutral bottom. Goods shipped by Amer





paid no higher freight, including such premi-
ums, than goods shipped by neutral vessels
where no such premiums were paid. By the
laws of trade the freights and premiums were
the same in both classes of vessels, or perhaps
little sower in American vessels, because q
preferences would naturally be given to vessels
not subject 10 war risks. Cargoes were only
subject to seizure when under the American
nag, and as neutral flags were available, the
shipper had the option of perfect immunity
from war risk if he chose to avail himself of
1t. Not SO with the American vessel The
American tag which covered it subjected it
and its cargo TO loss, and the risk of loss at
tached to the vessel, the penalty of this disa-
bllity had to be paid Iby reduction of freight
equivalent to the increased insurance to cover
this risk. .r.- a. t.-i7-,.


As the bill undertakes to repay the losses to
those who have suffered them, it should be
amended as have indicated to accomplish
this purpose. There is another provision of the
bill to which wish to direct the attention of
the House, which is the paragraph on page 8,
from lines 40 to 48, inclusive, which places the
United States in class four of claimants in the
distribution of the indemnity, and reads as fol-
lows: - nQ-


Fourth, to the United States for all vessels,
the property of the government or which were
under charter to the United States, and for the
destruction or loss of which the United States
by the terms of the charter party was liable,
which were captured and destroyed and lost by
said cruisers, together with the property Of the
United States on board, and the same indem-
nifty to the officers and crews of said vessels,
respectively, as hereinbef0re provided in case of
capture of private vessels. 20 Ll


This provides for the payment of the United
States in preference to two other classes Of
caimants-thcse embraced in the fifth and
sixth classes 1 think this paragraph should
be stricken from the bill, as it appears to me
to be beneath the dignity of the nation to be
lassed as private claimant, or in the attitude
of appropriating to the payment of its own
losses any portion of q fund obtained from
foreign government as an indemnity for the
losses sustained by its citizens If such pro-
vision is to be retained in the bill it should GER
tainly come in after all claims of the citizens
have been provided for. The losses sustained
by the depredations committed by the rebel
cruisers were in consequence of the inability or
neglect of the government of the United States
to protect its citizens on the high seas. Failing
to protect them during the war, it undertakes
to obtain indemnficaton for the losses sustain
ed after its close; and if it had not succeeded
by peaceful negotiations, would have been just
flied in the use of war power for the accom-
plshment of the object.


Under these circumstances it appears TO me
to be neither just, equitable, nor decent for the
Government to place itself in the list of claim
ants under this bill, at least until all classes
who had right Ito its protection from the
losses incurred have been provided for. With
regard to the payment OF interest on these
claims agree with my colleague MIR. Petersl
that if the amount received under the treaty is
sufficient it should date from the loss and not
from the date of the award, but / think no in
terest should be paid on any claim until the
principal shall have been paid on all. The
amendments have indicated, and which I
hope to be permitted to offer before vote is
taken s, on the the bn bill are , as follow:
on page 3, and on same page, after limo fifty
seven, add this proviso:


ProUided further, That any reduction on the
rate of freight on cargoes obtained by the
in of he s,xor
rate OF insurance, known as war risks, shall be
deducted from the amount to be paid such
owners and the amount of such deduc-
ton shall be added to. the war premiums
paid by the owners of the vessels in which such
cargo was shipped, as indemnity for loss sus-
tanned. -


And add to section FIVE: d


Prouaded, That no interest shall be paid on
any loss until the principal shall have been
fully paid on all losses provided for by this
act LII


Mr.. Coburn.-The gentleman says the car
riers paid the war risks and lost that much.
What evidence has he that these carriers
did not collect that in increased rates of


Mr.. Lynch.-The point is just this: we will
say, by way of illustration, that one fifth Of
the tonnage of the world engaged in the for
eign carrying trade was American, and that
four-hfths were foreign or neutral bottoms
Now, the shipper of the cargo, in making his
rate OF freight has four neutral vessels, not
subject to seizure, and one that is subject to
seizure, to select from. The rates of freights
are fixed by the four neutral vessels, and the
American vessel must make its freight, in
Guiding the war premium at the same rate Of
the neutral vessels. Therefore the vessel and
not the cargo paid the war premium upon the
cargo The vessel was jeopardzed by sailing
under the flag of the United States. The cargo
had the flags of the world to protect it, and If =
it chose the flag subject to this war risk, it was
because = reduction of freight made the rates
hat se 4I,a rhrrkk kkaxv
sci and not the cargo paid the war risks, and
having thus paid them, why the owners of such