1599 .35K55 Glass E_5-Sl2l Book . ^'S M^ .S GEISTEVA. A.^iV^A.RI3. FIVE MINUTES In Reply to Argument for Insurance Companies, before H. R. Judiciary Committee. By E. W. Metcalf. Hon. Mr, Evarts quoted from the President's message, as follows : " I therefore recommend to Congress to authorize the appointment of a Commission, to take proof of the amount and the ownership of these several claims, * * and that authority be given for the settlement of these claims by the United States, so that the Government shall have the owner- ship of the private claims, as well as the responsible control of all the demands against Great Britain. "^ Then, speaking in behalf of Insurance Companies, Mr. Evarts claimed that the President thus acknowledged an obligation of the Government to its citizens, the nature or measure of which subsequent negotiations and treaties have not changed, except that it is strengthened by the fact that indemnity in money has been received by the Government for England's fault. This suggests the inquiry — who would have received indemnity in the settlement, had the course so recommended by the President been adopted? .S5Mbi) First No distinction could or would have been made between losses caused by the Georgia and the Alabama, or between the Shenandoah before and after Australia, for no distinction existed in their histor}', in the wrongfulness of their acts, or in the losses which they occasioned. The distinctions after- ward made by the Tribunal related to questions of interna- tional obligation, and are of vast prospective importance and value to this nation, but did not touch the question of obligation to our own citizens.- Second. Losses occasioned by all Confederate cruisers outside of Confederate waters, would have been paid, for the United States had justly demanded of Great Britain full indemnity for the acts of all these cruisers, basing this demand upon that act of Great Britain which was, and which our Govern- ment had declared to be, (I quote its words,) " precipitate,"*'' " unprecedented,"-'^ "unjustifiable," "the cause, and the only cause,"^ in which "this evil had its origin,"'' "from which all the grievances seem deducible,"^ which " actually created,"''' gave '•birth,"''^ to their belligerent power, by acknowledging persons as a belligerent power on the ocean before they had a single vessel floating upon it."" And even after the nation had, for considerations of national importance only, " abandoned the claims for compen- sation founded upon the Queen's proclamation,"^ and basing its claims only on the small resultant remainder of the wrong, the United States still insisted that the " obliga- tion to make full compensation for the acts of these vessels was entailed upon Great Britain, "^ and asked the Tribunal at Geneva to make au award in grosa, and in considering its amount to take into account the losses of individuals in the destruction of their vessels and cargoes by the Sumier,^'^ NashviUe,^^ Retribution,^- Tallahassee,^'-^ &c. The Government, after having so definitely and com- pletely endorsed and insisted upon this obligation to its citizens, could not, in a settlement with those citizens, have ignored this obligation. Third. Insurance Companies would not have received a dollar — for their claims upon the Government for compensation, where property on which they had paid the insurance has been lost or destroyed, " have always been dismissed, on the ground that they were paid for the risk, and could not ask the Government to hold them harmless."^^ Fourth. The Government, by such settlement, and making full indemnity for all the loss to individuals caused by all the rebel cruisers, would have paid out millions of dollars less than it has since received as indemity from England; for all the actual unindemnified loss caused by all those cruisers, not included in the rules of international obligation estab- lished by the Geneva Tribunal, does not exceed $1,200,000, while the Tribunal justly awarded to the ncrifon indemnity for all the property destroyed by the cruisers which were included in those rules, deducting nothing for the indem- nities which individuals had received, which amount to about $5,750,000. Thus the Government has in its possession money, received as indemnity for England's fault, sufficient to pay its citi- zens for all their losses directly resulting from that fault, and at least $4,500,000 more, which, if its original obliga- tion has not been changed by subsequent negotiations, the Government is at liberty to disburse to those who suffered less directly from England's wrong, but to which Insurance Companies can make no claim. Have subsequent negotiations changed the obligation ? Does the fact that England has indemnified this nation for a wrong to itself, which wan no wrong, but a benefit to insurer's, create an obligation, ivhkh did not before exist, to hold in- surers (who were paid their own price for the risks they took) harmless from the consequences of their own volun- tary act ? Especially, when the Tribunal which awarded the indemity rejected the claim of insurers, and enunciated a broad principle which must always exclude them — in these words : " Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses.''"'^'' Has the surrender by our Government /o?- its own benefit of the principal foundation for the claims of its citizens, and the settlement so advantageous to itself, which cancels and bars those claims against England, and transfers the obligations to this nation, relieved the Government from its obligation, lohich did before exist, to settle with those citizens?'^ Although the President and Senate alone have exclusive jurisdiction over international questions, and the undoubted right to surrender for the public benefit any claim of pri- vate citizens as against a foreign Power, have they alone any legislative authority? Would such surrender cancel the claim, or only transfer the obligation to this nation ? Could the President and Senate alone make or change any law touching the obligation of the Government to the people ? Could they delegate to a tribunal any power which they themselves did not possess? If not, could the Tribunal at Geneva make any law for the distribution of its award which would be binding upon the Congress or courts of the United States ? Did the Government of the United States, in matters re- lating to the Treaty of Washington, act for itself, to protect its own dignity, honor, and interests, and establish great principles of international law and precedents, which shall benefit its people and all peoples for all time ; or, did it act simply as an attorney, employed by certain individuals who had, or fancied they had, sundry claims against England? If the first, its success was complete and glorious, one in regard to which every American may rejoice and be proud* if the second, only partial and, at best, of slight importance. Which view of the case will Congress take in its legisla- tion for the distribution of the Geneva Award ? If an attorney, it may say to certain of its clients, " Your bill is collected ; here is your money ;" and to others, "Your bill was not collected ; there is nothing for you." The disappointed client may ask: "Why not? Was not my loss as real and my claim as just as that of him you paid?" "Oh yes! and even more so," attorney replies, " but for certain reasons of great importance to myself, it was thought not best to have judgment issue for such claims as yours." If an attorney, a selfish and dishonest one ! Every honor- able impulse says no ! Not an attorney, acting for a few individuals ; but a great nation, acting for itself and for hu- manity. I have expressed these views as a business man. I feel sure that the business men of the country will endorse them, E. W. Metcalf, Builder of Ship Delphine. 1. President's Message, Dec. 5, 1870. 2. Correspondence, &c., Claims vs. Gr^t Britain, vol. 5, pp. 577, 686 to 591. 3. Same, vol. 3, pp. 533, 534. 4. Same, vol. 1, p. 226. 5. Same, vol. 1, p. 292. 6. Same, vol. 1, p. 242. 7. Same, vol. 1, p. 292; vol. 3, p. 533. 8. Papers Relating to Treaty Washington, vol. 3, pp. 196, 209, 9. American Case, p. 163. 10. Same, p. 132. 11. Same, p. 133. 12. Same, p. 156. 13. Same, pp. 164, 165. 14. Letter from W. B. Washburn. 15. Papers, &c., vol. 3, p. 223; vol. 2, p, 516, and "Short History of Long Negotiations." 16. Treaty of Washington and Award of the Tribunal. 17. Award of the Tribunal. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS "I III II ill Hill iij|j|jj|j|jj|j 013 709 513 ~^Aw