XVI.—Note on some observations presented by Mr. Bancroft Davis on the 29th August.
The Agent of the United States has forwarded to the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty, and has, it is supposed, delivered to the Tribunal, a paper containing some observations, to which it may be proper briefly to reply.
It will be convenient for the sake of brevity to refer to the various points to which these observations relate in the order in which they are mentioned by the Agent of the United States.
I.—As to the United States Tables and the British Tables and allowances generally.
On comparing the British allowances, as stated in the United States Tables, with those contained in the British Tables, it will be found that the total allowances have been recently “increased.” This arose from a desire to save the time of the Tribunal and to avoid disputes on minor matters, which led to all the claims for personal effects being allowed, except a few which were manifestly extravagant. In no case have the total allowances in respect of any one cruiser been diminished. The alterations, therefore, in the British Tables are not such as the United States have any reason to complain of. On the other hand, where the claims in the United States Tables differ from those in the Revised Statement, they have been invariably increased, and in some cases to no inconsiderable extent.
II.—As to the Currency question.
It appears from the paper presented by the United States Agent being occupied by this more than by any other question, that it is felt to be a question of considerable importance, but it appears to the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty that the arguments urged in that paper strongly confirm the view which has been submitted on this matter in behalf of Great Britain. The reasons for this opinion are briefly as follows:
(a) The circumstance of the Treaty providing for the payment of the claims in gold would no doubt have raised a presumption that they are made in that currency, if they had been originally advanced subsequently to the Treaty. The fact, however, is that a list of the claims was prepared and was presented to the Congress of the United States as early as the year 1866, and that the claims now advanced are founded on this list of claims; that they are in very many cases identical with, that they never fall short of, but in a great many cases considerably exceed, the latter claims. Under these circumstances, as it is almost certain that the claims advanced in 1866 were estimated in the ordinary paper-currency, except in some few cases where gold-currency is expressly referred to, it seems to follow that the claims on which the Tribunal is called upon to adjudicate must also be considered as estimated in paper-currency.
[Page 639](b) This conclusion is strongly confirmed by the fact that in the well-known report which was presented to Congress in the year 1870, and which contains most valuable tables, showing the average value of American ships and their gross earnings, gold-currency is specially designated as “specie-currency,” to distinguish it from the ordinary paper-currency.
(c) The same conclusion is actually proved almost beyond a doubt by the very facts cited in the paper now under consideration, for they show that, in the few instances in which the claims are made in gold, there is some special reference to that circumstance—a circumstance which necessarily leads to the inference that these are the exceptional and not the ordinary cases.
(d) The Agent of Her Britannic Majesty entirely denies the extraordinary allegation that the purchasing power of gold has, during the last eight years, diminished 50 per cent., and is also at a loss to conceive what bearing the alleged fact, if true, ought, according to any sound principles of jurisprudence, to have on the decision of the Tribunal.
III.—As to the wages.
The Tribunal has already decided that there should be an allowance made to the masters, officers, and crews of the whalers of one year’s wages. It is therefore clear that the additional claims for these wages contained in the United States tables must be struck out. As regards the wages of the merchant-vessels, they will be referred to in the course of the observations to be presently made in reference to the freight of those ships.
IV.—As to the personal effects.
Many claims for personal effects, some of them of an extravagant amount, are comprised in the Revised Statement. There is certainly no reason to believe that any were omitted which could with any propriety have been advanced. The new and very large claims for personal effects, advanced on the 19th August for the first time, are purely conjectural and are not supported by any evidence which has been presented to the Tribunal. Indeed, it is almost certain that no such evidence could have been adduced, for, from Captain Semmes’s Journal and other sources of information, it is well known that it was neither the policy nor the practice of the captains of the confederate cruisers to seize or destroy the personal effects of the officers or crews of the captured vessels.
The Agent of Her Britannic Majesty also begs the Tribunal to bear in mind that to advance these claims without the slightest evidence in support of them is to act quite inconsistently with the assertion so frequently made in behalf of the United States that all the claims are supported by the affidavits of the claimants themselves, and there does not seem any reason why the United States might not with equal plausibility have advanced a series of new hypothetical claims for the effects of the numerous American passengers who might be imagined to have been on board the captured vessels.
V.—As to the prospective catch.
The question relating to the enormous claim for prospective catch—a claim which has been increased in so striking and unjustifiable a manner since the year 1866—has been already decided by the Tribunal. The Agent of Her Britannic Majesty therefore thinks it his duty to refrain from making any observations on this subject.
[Page 640]VI.—As to the freights of the merchant-vessels.
The Agent of Her Britannic Majesty is surprised to meet with a repetition of the assertion, made for the first time on the 19th August last, that the claims for freights should be taken as claims for net and not for gross freights. These claims in the case of the Alabama amount to more than 45 per cent. of those for the vessels and outfits; but on looking at the Report presented to Congress in the year 1870, it will be found in table XVI that the average gross yearly earnings of American vessels engaged in foreign trade from the year 1861 to the year 1870 amounted to 33⅓ per cent, of the values of the vessels. Under these circumstances the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty is at a loss to conceive how, in the face of this well-known official estimate, it can with any plausibility or propriety be contended that the claims of 45 per cent. of the values of the vessels on voyages which would not average more than six months, that is to say, claims equal to a gross return of 90 per cent. per annum, are claims for net freight, or how it can be even denied that they are greatly exaggerated, even when considered as claims for gross freight.
The Tribunal has decided that one-half this large amount should be allowed, and it certainly must be admitted that this allowance would be amply sufficient to cover, not only the net profits expected to be derived by the ship-owners from these voyages, but also any wages which the officers and crews could be reasonably supposed to have lost.
VII.—As to the double claims.
These are of two descriptions: those which are avowedly and expressly made and which are admitted in the United States tables, but nevertheless included in the alleged total, and those which are tacitly made, and which are not denied by the United States Government, but are left by them for the determination of the Tribunal. As regards the former class, amounting to $869,400, the Agent of Her Britanic Majesty confidently submits that the suggestion made by the Tribunal ought to have been at once adopted, and that these double claims should have been struck out, and ought not to have been included in the total claim which is stated in the United States tables, and which is there compared with the total British allowance of $7,074,710.
As regards the double claims tacitly made, they were, many months ago, specifically pointed out in the British Reports, and there shown to be double claims.
The United States Government has had all the evidentiary documents in its possession for a long time, and has, according to the statement now made by its agent, carefully examined them. Such being the case, it is submitted by the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty that, as the United States Government does not now deny these double claims, they must, of course, be deducted. The double claims altogether considerably exceed a million and a half of dollars.
Finally, it is now alleged by the Agent of the United States that his Government has carefully examined the documents which are filed at Washington.
The assertion that that Government had never audited the claims is to be found in the Argument of the United States, and is there used as an excuse for the double claims not having been excluded. It seems also to be the only reason for the very inaccurate statement made in that argument to the effect, “that very few, if any, double claims exist, except in the case of the whaling-vessels destroyed by the Shenandoah, [Page 641] there being none of this class of claims in the case of the merchant-ships.” To what extent this statement is incorrect is at once apparent on looking at the United States tables themselves. Moreover, it seems difficult to reconcile the statement that these claims have really been carefully examined on behalf of the United States Government, with the fact of the presentation to the Tribunal of some of the very extravagant claims enumerated in the British Report, such as a claim of $7,000 by a harpooner for personal injuries, which are in no way indicated or described; a claim of $15,000 by the master of the Louisiana, for interruption of business—neither of which claims is to be found verified by any affidavit whatever; a claim of $10,000 by a passenger, for loss of office of consul; a claim by Ebenezer Nye, the master of the Abigail, for more than $17,000, for personal effects, &c.; claims by masters and mates of vessels, (over and above their demands for personal effects,) of $20,000 and $10,000, for the loss of wages, and many other similarly exorbitant claims, which are more specifically referred to in the British Reports.