XIII.-COMPARATIVE TABLES, PRESENTED BY THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE 19TH OF AUGUST, 1872, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF THE TRIBUNAL.

In accordance with the instructions of the Tribunal, the Agent and Counsel of the United States have caused tables to be prepared, showing the differences which exist between the statements of claims and losses submitted to the Tribunal on the part of the United States, for the estimates based on these statements which have been presented on the part of Great Britain.

The claims presented by the United States are supported by sworn statements presented by those who possess the necessary information, and they exhibit in detail the items which go to form the sum total, and the names of all who have made reclamation, whatever may be the sum which the Tribunal may see fit to award. The claims on the part of private individuals thus computed, verified, and submitted, are supported by all the guarantees of their good faith and their validity, as well for their general amount as for the other facts concerning them which governments are in the habit of requiring, in such cases, from their own citizens. It thus appears that these computations show the entire extent of all private losses which the result of the adjudications of this Tribunal ought to enable the United States to make compensation for.

In certain cases, however, there is reason to believe that more claimants than one appear for the same injury. In such cases the United States have impartially presented the statements of all the claimants, intending, when the proper time should arrive, to endeavor to show, from the evidence, what sum Great Britain should in justice be held to pay, by way of compensation for real losses, without prejudice to conflicting rights. We have done our best to prepare tables by which it seems to us that the Tribunal must be enabled to determine with sufficient accuracy the amount of these double claims, if indeed any such exist. It is not easy to conform to those instructions of the Tribunal which require the preparation of tables which can be compared with those of Great Britain. While the American statement sets forth details, and furnishes the Tribunal with all the necessary means of making a minute examination, vessel by vessel, and claimant by claimant, the British statement is a generalization based on certain facts which are taken for granted, and which exist, in the opinion of the authors, in the commercial world. It is not therefore possible for us to present comparative views touching the various claimants in detail, or even touching the various vessels destroyed by the cruisers.

The authors of the British statement have classified our claims in so arbitrary a manner that we are forced to confine ourselves to a comparison of the sums total contained in their classified tables. On our side, a knowledge of these sums total is reached by following the evidence, step by step; on theirs by a process of reasoning. The two systems differ so widely that a detailed comparison is impossible. All that remains for us to do is to beg the Tribunal to refer to what has already been said on this subject in the American Argument. (American Argument, note D.)

We are, therefore, forced to follow the British arrangement in order to compare the sums total, since it is impossible to compare our views in detail or according to any combination differing from that which is followed in their arrangement. We give their classification below: A.-Claims arising from the capture of whalers or fishing-vessels.

B. Similar claims arising from vessels carrying cargoes composed of one kind of goods. C.-Similar claims arising from vessels carrying cargoes composed of various kinds of goods.

D.-Similar claims arising from vessels in ballast.

E and F.-Divers claims which could not properly be placed in any of the above categories.

Before coming to special vessels we desire to call attention to three well-marked points of difference between the two statements.

(a) The United States ask here, as they have already done in their memorial and in their argument, that the Tribunal should grant them interest on the sums which they may determine to regard as the extent of the original injury, as a necessary and indispensable part of the indemnity due to them in consequence of that injury. This interest ought to be at the ordinary rate which prevails in the United States, where the damages were suffered and where the losses are to be indemnified. The interest should be computed from the time when the losses occurred up to the time fixed by the Tribunal for the payment.

(b) In the American statement, especially in the claims arising from the destruction of whaling vessels, expected profits, or "the prospective catch," is included in the computation of damages. (See American Argument, note D.)

(c) According to the arbitrary assumption of the British statement, that the freight claimed by the United States in the name of their merchant navy constitutes " gross freight," this statement rejects all claims for freight, while, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we assume that these claims are for "net freight."

These three classes form in the sum total a great part of the differences which exist between the two statements.

In accordance with the suggestions of some of the Arbitrators we have eliminated from the tables the claims submitted in favor of whaling vessels for the "prospective catch," the amount of which would be $4,009,302.50; but we by no means intend to withdraw these claims, or to intimate that we do not consider them just. On this subject we refer the Arbitrators to the note alluded to at the close of the American Argument. Should the Tribunal share our views, the claims for injuries suffered by these vessels should be proportionately diminished. In case it should not share our views, we should ask it to grant us, as an equivalent, interest at the rate of 25 per cent. on the value of the vessel and equipments.

We have been obliged to trust to arbitrary estimates in regard to two subjects, because there is no sworn evidence in relation to them; viz: (A.) The pay of the officers and crews of the captured vessels. (B.) The value of their personal effects.

We have every reason to believe that the sums total which we submit to the Tribunal are for the most part correct in substance.

(A.) We calculate for each vessel of class A, whose burden did not exceed 300 tons, one captain at $150 per month; one first officer at $100 per month; one second officer at $75 per month; one third officer at $60 per month; one fourth officer at $50 per month; four helmsmen at $40 each per month; four helmsmen at $30 each per month; and four

teen men at $20 each per month; and we calculate one additional man at $20 per month for every fifteen tons in excess of 300 tons.

In the statements relative to the vessels designated under letter A, there is, in the annexed tables, a calculation of wages which exceeds the correct sum of $120 per month for each vessel. The error is corrected at the end of the respective columns of each table, and the sum total is finally stated correctly. The error was not discovered in season to correct it in the detailed statements, without again subjecting the Tribunal to the inconvenience of a delay.

For each vessel of classes B, C, D, E, and F, whose burden did not exceed 300 tons, we calculate one captain at $150 per month; one first officer at $100 per month; one second officer at $75 per month; and ten men at $20 each per month. For every additional 30 tons we calculate au additional man at $20 per month.

The wages are calculated, except in certain specified cases, from the commencement of the voyage up to the time of the capture, and when the capture took place in the Atlantic Ocean, or when the capture of a vessel whose owner resided on the Pacific coast took place in the Pacific Ocean, they are calculated for six months additional; for nine months additional when the owner resided on the Atlantic coast, and the capture took place in the Pacific Ocean. This additional sum is to pay the expenses of the return after the capture, and of the time passed on the way.

(B.) In some cases the officers or men have presented claims for the value of their personal effects. We have submitted no claim for such persons in the general table under the name of each vessel. When no special claim is presented we submit a general claim, according to the following estimate, viz, for each captain $1,000; for each first officer, $750; for each second officer, $500; for each third and each fourth of ficer, $250; and for each helmsınan and each seaman $100; we consider these estimates moderate.

It remains for us to explain the annexed tables. The detailed tables contain six columns, numbered respectively 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Column 1 contains the items which form the sum total of the claims under the name of each vessel captured. We give the name of each vessel captured, its burden and the claims which were presented in its behalf on the 15th of April. We add a statement of the sums which must be subtracted from the sum total, and of those which must be added to it, according to the rules which we have established. Column 2 shows the said sum total, without the "prospective catch," the "expected profits," or the "breaking up of the voyage." It embraces the sums which are detailed in columns 3, 4, and 5. Column 3 shows the claims for insurance which are undoubtedly not double claims. Column 4 shows certain claims for insurance, in regard to which the evidence is silent. It is possible that some of these should be deducted from the sum total of column 2; this can only be determined by an examination of the facts in each case. Column 5 shows still other claims for insurance, according to which the owners of the property insured claim, at the same time, full indemnity for their losses, without regard to the insurance embraced in this column. It is for the tribunal to decide whether these claims should or should not be deducted from column 2. Column 6 contains remarks.

The decisions rendered by the tribunal, in relation to the Georgia, Sumter, Chickamauga, Tallahassee, Retribution, &c., have necessitated a modification of the certificates of the Navy Department of the United States, touching the national claims, which certificates were pro

duced according to the provisions of the protocol accompanying the treaty of Washington. (American Memorial, French text, page 3.) In the annexed tables this modification has been made by deducting from the sum total, submitted December 15, 1871, the expenses caused by the acts of vessels for the acts of which the Tribunal has decided that it could not hold Great Britain responsible.

The summing up shows the sum total of the claims now submitted on the part of the United States, including the "prospective catch," and the sums total embraced in the classified British estimates submitted in the Counter Memorial and in the Argument of Great Britain.