Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 3, 1901

Mr. White to Mr. Hay.

American Embassy,
London, November 23, 1901.

No. 712.]

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith the report of Mr. R. Newton Crane, upon the merits of the 15 claims submitted by our Government through him to the South African deportation compensation commission, which is so full and complete that no additional observations or explanations appear to be necessary from me. Mr. Crane has been to see life several times of late on the subject, and has gone over at length the various considerations which have led to the conclusions at which he has arrived with respect to the method of distribution of the award; and I entirely concur in the views expressed in the report.

I may add that Mr. Crane has devoted a great deal of time and attention to the question of these claims ever since the commission has been sitting, and the amount which he succeeded in persuading the British representative upon the commission, Sir John Ardagh, to recommend his Government to offer us does great credit to Mr. Crane’s tact and skill as a negotiator, as well as to the desire of His Britannic Majesty’s Government to deal in a liberal spirit with the claims put forward by our Government.

I would particularly call your attention to Mr. Crane’s observations, under the heading “General remarks,” upon the misleading computation in the tabular statement, setting forth the percentage of the awards to the claims of each country, which appeared in the Times of the 15th instant. Mr. Crane points out that the proper method of estimating the percentage of the awards to each country is not the relation that such awards bear to the total amount claimed by all the subjects or citizens of each power, but the amount averaged by each claimant. If the latter mode of computation be adopted, it will be seen how very much more, in proportion to the number of our claimants, has been awarded to us than to any other power.

I have, etc.,

Henry White.

[Inclosure.]

report on the claims submitted by the united states government to the south african deportation compensation commission.

In general.

Altogether 15 claims were presented, the claimants being Alfred J. Giebner, Seigfried J. Ahrberg, Frank Crus, Francisco Pudjunos, John Anderson, William Phelps, Dr. A. F. Conroy, Anna Wedekind, Charles Fowles, John Joseph Maloney, H. M. Marmorstein, Johan Sundt,-------Sharp, ------Lyons, and ------Nelkin. Of these persons 5 claim to be native-born citizens of the United States, although no evidence is furnished as to the date or place of their birth, and 8 claim to be naturalized citizens. Of the other 2, Lyons and Sharp, nothing is known. Eight were deported on suspicion of being concerned in the Johannesburg plot to murder Lord Roberts and other English officers; I was imprisoned at Natal as a Boer spy; I was captured on the battlefield while serving, as he alleges, with a Red Cross ambulance corps, attached to the Boer forces; and 3 were compelled to leave the country for various reasons. Two were, strictly speaking, not forcibly deported, but appear to have voluntarily left South Africa, and at their own expense. The entire amount claimed on account of actual losses was $52,278.29.

The commission heard all of the claims, so far as an ex parte statement of them could be made, except those of Lyons and Sharp. No claim has been forwarded from the Department of State on behalf of these last-named claimants, but it was mentioned to the commission that these persons had appealed to the United States Government and that their names were embraced in the letters addressed by his excellency the American ambassador to Lord Lansdowne on the 24th of October, 1900, when the claims of American subjects were first brought to the attention of His Majesty’s Government. Sundt’s claim was presented to the commission by his solicitors in England, Messrs. Tyrell, Lewis, Lewis & Broadment, and Sundt was orally examined by the commissioners. His claim was rejected on the ground that it appeared from his own admission that he had voluntarily left South Africa, and traveled to England at his own expense, and therefore his case was one which did not come within the jurisdiction of the commission. The claimant subsequently appealed to the Department of State, and upon instructions from the ambassador his claim was again presented to the English authorities.

The commission announced that they would hear the various claims without insisting upon any technical formality in the way of proof; that they would give the representative of His Majesty’s Government, Sir John Ardagh, an opportunity to explain why each individual had been deported, and that then the claimants might put in any evidence they could adduce in reply to the charges made by Sir John Ardagh. This course was entered upon, but after the claims had been gone through it was intimated by Sir John Ardagh that his Government desired, irrespective of any action by the commission, to agree, if possible, with the representatives of the various Governments upon a lump sum to be received by each of the powers in full satisfaction of the demands of their respective claimants, it being understood that His Majesty’s Government was not to be concerned as to how the sums so paid were allocated among the various claimants.

I communicated this proposition to his excellency the ambassador in my letter of the 29th of August last, and stated that in my opinion, for reasons therein stated, it was wise to accept it. In due course I received authority to enter into negotiations with Sir John Ardagh, and after numerous interviews, extending over some weeks, an offer of £6,000 was made on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to settle the American claims, and I was instructed to accept the same. The result was announced at the meeting of the commission which was held on the 28th of October, 1901, and the commission therefore ceased to have any further consideration of the matter.

The settlement, in my opinion, is a very favorable one to the United States, both in respect to the substance of the claims and the relation they sustained to those put forward by other Governments. The amount awarded to the American Government is more than 100 per cent greater than that allowed to any other Government, whether the amount claimed or the number of claimants be considered. I trust I may be permitted in this connection to express my appreciation of the courtesy, sense of fairness, and extreme indulgence shown by Sir John Ardagh throughout the protracted negotiations before the settlement was arrived at. It was extremely difficult to determine the merits of most of the claims, not only so far as the facts were concerned, but in the application of the principles of public international law and comity, to assertion of facts which were incapable of proof and were therefore considerately assumed.

* * * * * * *

General remarks.

Since the foregoing was written a summary of the award was made by His Majesty’s Government and the percentage of the award to claims has been published by the Times newspaper of the 15th of November, 1901, as follows:

Countries.	Number of claimants.	Amount claimed.	Amount awarded.	Percentage of awards to claims.
Austria-Hungary	112	£43,800	£15,000	34.24
Belgium	6	6,000	800	13.33
Denmark	3	900	250	27.77
France	1	20,000
Germany	199	245,324	30,000	12.22
Greece	1	616
Holland	1,139	706,355	37,500	5.30
Russia	28	10,175	4,000	39.31
Italy	113	51,000	12,000	28.52
Spain	2	520	150	28.84
Sweden and Norway	8	4,000	1,000	25
Switzerland	5	760	250	32.89
United States	14	27,000	6,000	22.22

As it is not improbable that the award of the British Government in this instance may be quoted as a precedent in the future, it should be noted that the above calculation gives a misleading idea of the manner in which the claims have been settled, as must any calculation based upon the relation the award made bears to the sums claimed. The amount claimed is too often not the sum which a claimant honestly thinks is justly due to him for the loss he has suffered, but it is the sum which his caprice or cupidity fixes as that which may posssibly be allowed him. In the present instance the allowances demanded for “moral” damages by other claimants than the Americans were very small. Among the American claimants themselves there was a very wide disparity in appraising their losses. Of 3 men in the same occupation, and the same employ, and the same domestic surroundings, deported together, under almost identically the same circumstances, 1 places his demand, at $5,220; another, at $11,112.50; and another, at $50,000.

A fairer way of ascertaining what the award amounts to is by computing what it averages per claimant, practically when, as in this instance, those who make the claims were of practically the same walk of life and employment, and deported under like conditions.

The result of such a computation is as follows:

Countries.	Number of claimants.	Amount awarded.	Average per claimant.
		£	£	s.	d.
Austria-Hungary	112	15,000	133	18	6
Belgium	6	800	133	6	8
Denmark	3	250	83	6	8
Germany	199	30,000	150	15	0
Holland	1,139	37,500	32	18	4
Russia	28	4,000	142	17	1
Italy	113	12,000	106	3	10
Spain	2	150	75	0	0
Sweden and Norway	8	1,000	125	0	0
Switzerland	5	250	50	0	0
United States	14	6,000	428	11	5

I can not conclude this report without drawing the attention of the Government to the fact, disclosed by affidavits filed with the State Department, that some of the claimants have contracted to pay their local attorneys for presenting their claims 50 per cent of whatever sum may be awarded to them. In the case of one of the attorneys the fee which he will receive, if the recommendations which I have made in this report are carried out, will amount to £750. His services consisted in filing memorials which, although he has been given ample opportunity to do so, have not been supported by a single word of proof of the assertions which they contain. He has been acquainted with the charges made against his clients, but has either been indifferent to them or unable to meet them. If it had been necessary for him to embark in protracted litigation in their behalf and to have devoted time, labor, and skill achieving success for them, such compensation might not have been excessive. But in this case his labors have been of no material advantage.

I therefore trust the Government may find some way of letting it be known that in future such claims do not need the intermediation of attorneys, but can be presented directly by citizens themselves. As the appeals I have made to some of these attorneys to furnish me with evidence to meet the accusation made by the British Government against their clients have met with no response whatever, I think it is only fair to presume that either they no longer represent their former clients, or that the latter are not now living. In either case the Government will be justified in refusing to pay over to the attorneys such sums as may be allotted to their clients until the latter have been directly communicated with, and have had the circumstances explained to them, and have been given an opportunity to confirm or withdraw any powers of attorney they may have heretofore executed for the collection of their respective claims.

R. Newton Crane.

Temple, November 16, 1901.