Imágenes de página


the gross amount of the additional claims for goods, profits, commissions, and insurances, and to regard, for the purpose of the present estimate, the balance as representing the value of the goods, free on board, together with ordinary interest from the time of shipment until capture. This deduction of 12 per cent. is justified by the reasons fully stated in the introductory part of our First Report, especially as the ad. ditional claims for cargo here also include sometimes claims for profits at the rate of 50 and even 100 per cent., as well as claims for commissions, and damages for non-arrival of goods, and moreover appear to involve "double claims for single losses” to a considerable amount.

Having made these preliminary observations we proceed to consider this item (c) of $336,699, which comprises claims for cargoes, profits, commissions, and insurances thereon; and we will begin by specifying those particular claims which we think ought to be rejected.

1. W. McGilvery, page 219.–This is a vessel not claimed for in the “Former Statement," and for her cargo a claim is made of $4,752; but as the Jeff Davis is not one of the cruisers mentioned in the United States. Case, this claim must, for the reasons stated at page 2 of the British Counter Case, in reference to the Boston and the Sallie, be certainly rejected.

2. Anna F. Schmidt, page 16.—Baker and Hamilton, of Sacramento, California, claimed in the “Former Statement” $6,474 partly directly, and partly tbrough insurance companies. In the "Revised Statement" they advance a claim of $13,078, which is all but double the former amount. We consider this to constitute in all probability a double claim for a single loss, and propose therefore to reject this additional claim of $6,604.

3. Sea Lark, pages 78–82.—Here Osgood and Stetson admit having received from the Merchants' Mutual Marine Insurance Company $1,000, but do not give credit for this sum, although it is also at the same time claimed by the insurance company. This therefore constitutes a double claim for a single loss, and gives rise to the deduction of $1,000.

4. Sea Lark.-F. M. and Mary Rollins claim $10,000, but admit having received from insurance companies $1,565 in gold, which, according to the rate of exchange inferred from the case of the Morning Star, as stated in page 319 of this Report, would amount to $2,150 currency. There must therefore be a deduction of $2,150.

5. T. B. Wales, page 96.—There are here two additional claims, viz, a claim by Young and Emmons of $3,588 for loss on cargo above insurance, and a claim by Samuel Stevens of $3,500 for loss on cargo and profits above insurance. On comparing the claims made by these persons and by the companies with whom they had effected insurances in the “Revised Statement” and in the “Former Statement,” we have scarcely any doubt that these claims have been already discharged by the insurance companies who are claiming at the same time, and we therefore reject these two claims, which together amount to $7,088.

6. Good Hope, page 218.—Here the Equitable Safety Insurance Company have advanced two additional claims, one of $10,000 as insurers on cargo, and another of $10,000 as insurers on ship for Jasigi, Goddard & Co. On comparing the claims made by this firm, and by companies as insurers for them in the “Original List” of 1866, with those in the "List presented to Congress in 1869," as well as with those in the “Former” and in the “Revised Statements," we think it can be proved, almost beyond a doubt, that the additional claim by the insurance company of $10,000 in respect of the cargo must be rejected as a double claim for a single loss.


7. Crown Point.-It appears from the “Original List” that M. Heller & Brother, of San Francisco, and J. Heller & Brother, of New York, are the same firm; and from this fact it can be inferred, with scarcely any doubt, from the claims which M. Heller and J. Heller advance for loss on cargo, (at pp. 125, 126 of the former, and pp. 152–154 of the Revised Statement,) that they are making double claims for single losses, at least to the extent of $9,044; we say at least, because we cannot help viewing with considerable suspicion a claim made at the same time by a firm of William Heller & Co., of New York and San Francisco, (page 125 of the “Former," and page 151 of the “Revised Statement,") for very nearly the same amount as that claimed by John Heller. We therefore deduct the sum of $9,044.

Adding then together the seven amounts of $4,752, $6,604, $1,000, $2,150, $7,088, $10,000, and $9,044, which we reject for the reasons just stated, and subtracting their total amount of $40,638 from the amount claimed for cargoes, namely, $336,699, we obtain a balance of $296,061. For reasons already stated, we deduct from this balance 12 per cent., and thus obtain the sum of $260,534, which, for the purpose of the present estimate, we propose to allow, instead of the claim of $336,699.

As regards item (d) of $22,000 for damages, there are two claims, each of $10,000—one by the widow of the First mate, and the other by the Second mate of the Crown Point–for damages, loss of wages, and personal effects. We have assumed that of this sum $1,000 is claimed for personal effects, and have therefore excluded it from this item; and the remaining $19,000 we put down as a claim for damages and loss of wages, time, &c., which, for reasons fully stated in our First Report, must be rejected. The residue of this item, viz, $3,000, represents a claim for damages occasioned by the Jeff Davis, (see page 219,) with which, for the reason already stated, we have nothing to do. "It follows, therefore, that we propose to reject entirely the claim (d) of $22,000 for damages.

As regards item (en) of $31,191 for personal effects, it will be found, on referring to our former Report on Class C, (page 26,) that the claims for loss of personal effects on board the vessels comprised in that class are especially extravagant, and that we consequently made a general allowance for these claims, at the rate of $3 per ton. This allowance appeared and still appears to us to be, on the whole, sufficient to cover any loss probably sustained in respect of personal effects; and as the “Revised Statement” does not comprise any new vessels belonging to this class except the Robert Gilfillan, (which, as already stated, we put on one side, we do not think that the additional claim (e) for personal effects calls for any additional allowance.

The result, therefore, at which we have arrived as to the additional claims under Class C may be exhibited in the following form:

[ocr errors]




a. Vessels.
b. Freights
C. Cargoes
d. Damages
e. Personal effects..

$172, 652

79, 693 336, 699 22,000 31, 191

$163, 052

75, 693 76, 165 22, 000 31, 191

$9, 600

4,000 260, 534

642, 235

368, 101

274, 134



In the “ Former Statement” the claims comprised in this class amount to
But of this amount there has been withdrawn, in the case of the Emma Jane,

(page 37,) the sum of


Leaving a sum of...
To be compared with the sum claimed

the “ Revised Statement”

721,959 887, 831

So that the total amount of the additional claims in the “Revised Statement” is 165, 872

[blocks in formation]

As regards item (a) for vessels and insurances, it consists of

New Claims, (i. e., claims for vessels not comprised in “Former Statement,") $102,459.

Further Claims, (i. e., fresh claims for vessels comprised in “Former Statement,") $14,500.

The New Claims, amounting to $102,459, are—for the Tacony, 295 tons, (page 206 ;) the Golden Rocket, 610 tons, (page 269;) and the Vigilant, 650 tons, (page 271.)

In the absence of all information as to the class or condition of these vessels, we value them at our average rate of $40 per ton, which gives an allowance of $62,200.

The Further Claims, amounting to $14,500, consist of a claim of $500 for the Josiah Achom, and $14,000 for the Estelle.

As to the Josiah Achom it will be found that at page 28 of our First Report there was a claim of $7,500 for the vessel and her outfit, which we felt ourselves compelled to allow, because there was no information given as to her tonnage, destination, or employment. The “Revised Statement” supplies the required information, and as our valuation of this vessel of 125 tons would be considerably less than the amount of $7,500 already allowed, we think the additional claim must certainly be rejected.

As to the Estelle, on referring to page 26 of our First Report it will be seen that we there rejected the claim of $4,000 which was made by an insurance company, because it did not seem in any way to represent the value of the vessel, for which no claim was advanced in the “Former Statement.” In thé “Revised Statement" a claim is made of $14,000 for the value of this vessel, (300 tons,) and although it is somewhat in excess of our average valuation, still, judging from the trade in which she was engaged, we assume that she must have been a vessel of a good class, and we propose, therefore, that the claim of $14,000 should be allowed.

We have thus estimated the New claims at $62,200, and the Further claims at $14,000, and therefore propose an allowance of $76,200 for the claim (a) of $116,959 in respect of the vessels.

As regards item (c) for cargoes and insurances thereon, it consists of a claim of $21,155 by the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, for insurance on cargo per the Umpire, and a claim of $5,000 by Messrs. Lawson and Walker on account of Collins for cargo per the Mondamin.

As to the claim by the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, although it seems almost inexplicable that it should have been presented only at the last moment, we propose to allow it, subject, however, to those re. marks wbich we made at page 14 of this Report as to all the additional claims for cargoes. As to the claim for goods per the Mondamin, it is for cargo on board a vessel, described at page 159 of the “Revised Statement” as being in ballast, and for this reason cannot be regarded without suspicion ; moreover, it is put forward at the last moment without any particulars or information to support it, and is merely presented in a letter from Messrs. Lawson and Walker, one of the two or three firms who seem to have made it their business to collect additional claims. For all these reasons the claim is one which in our opinion should be rejected.

Deducting, then, 12 per cent. from the claim by the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company of $21,155, we obtain the sum of $18,623, which, for reasons stated in our First Report, we assume to represent the value of the cargo free on board, and we therefore propose that this sum of $18,623 be allowed for the claim (c) of $26,155 in respect of the cargoes.

As regards the item (d) for damages, it consists of only one claim of $13,500 by the owners of the Tacony for “ loss by interruption of business," a claim which must be rejected for reasons so often stated in our First Report.

As regards the item (e,) for personal effects, the claims are as follows:

The Sonora, p. 90.—Here are claims amounting to $5,471 by the Master and Mate for loss of effects, time, passage, and expenses, no such claim having been made in the “Former Statement.” For reasons stated in our First Report the only claim which can be taken into account is that for loss of personal effects, and we consider that for this loss a sum of $1,000, viz, $700 for the Master and $300 for the Mate, will give adequate compensation.

The Mondamin, p. 188.—Here a new claim is advanced by Dillingham for $1,143 for loss of personal effects, &c., but as the vessel was in ballast, and the Master and Mate make no claim for personal effects, and there is no description given of the claimant, and no information as to whether he was a passenger or a seaman, we think this claim ought not to be allowed.

The Harvey Birch, p. 220.—Here there is an additional claim by the Captain of $1,047. In our First Report (p. 28) we allowed the sum of $3,500 for loss of personal effects on board this vessel, and as we consider this allowance amply sufficient to cover all such losses, we think this claim should be rejected.

The Delphine, p. 234.—Here the Mate claims $825, but as in our First Report (p. 28) we allowed the liberal sum of $3,090 for loss of personal effects in respect of this vessel of 705 tons, we think this further claim should be disallowed.

The Tacony, p. 206.—Here Doherty at the last moment makes a new claim of $772 for loss of personal effects. Here again, as no description is given of the claimant, and as it is not known whether he was a passenger, common seaman, or officer, we think that a claim of this vague kind, presented only at the last moment, ought not to be assumed to be a claim other than by a seaman, and we allow $80.

We therefore propose that for the claim (e) of $9,258 for personal effects there should be allowed $1,080.

The result at which we have arrived with reference to the claims in Class D may be exhibited in the following form:

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

In the "Former Statement” the claims comprised in this class are.

$29 ,835 In the “Revised Statement" the claims in this class amount to. $501, 951 But on account of the errors of $2,130 and of $400, pointed out at

page 4 of this Report, in reference to the Corriss Ann and Morning Štar, (two vessels belonging to this class,) there must be added the sum of.

2, 530


So that the total amount of the additional claims in the “Revised Statement”


207, 646

This consists of clains(a.) For vessels....

For insurances on vessels. (b.) For freights...

For insurances on freights. (c.) For cargoes...

For insurances on cargoes. (a.) For damages... (e.) For personal effects..

- $150, 1897
8, 988

$159, 177 21, 156

21, 156 5, 000 18, 270 S

23, 270



207, 646

As regards item (a,) for vessels and insurances, it consists of :
New Claims, i. e., claims for vessels not comprised in “Former Statement”
Further Claims, i.e., fresh claims for vessels comprised in "Former Statement

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

The Neu Claims for vessels are as follows :

1. The M. Y. Davis, p. 185.—The claim for vessel is $16,100. Her tonnage and class are not given, nor is it stated where or when she was captured, or on what voyage she was bound, and as this claim was not presented until the 15th March last, and was then presented by Messrs. Lawson & Walker, (the firm already referred to,) without any material information or particulars being given, and apparently without being supported by any affidavit of the owner, or other proper evidentiary document, we think it should be rejected.

2. The Joseph Maxwell, p. 269.-This ship, the tonnage of which is not given, is represented to have been captured by the Sumter and run ashore, to have been afterwards got off and taken into the port of Cienfuegos, and to have been there sold with her cargo by order of the Court of Admiralty. The claim for the vessel is $4,988, advanced by an insurance company, for insurances on her. It may well be that the events above described constituted a constructive total loss, and obliged the insurance company to pay the amount insured, but in such case the

« AnteriorContinuar »