« 이전계속 »
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES UNDER THE GENEVA AWARD
Statement showing the total amount of claims filed by insurance companies for losses by the Alabama, Florida, and their tenders, and by the Shenandoah after she left Melbourne; the same having been compiled from the revised list of claims, as published by the Department of State, presented to the tribunal of Geneva—Continued.
Statement showing the amount of claims held by stock and mutual companies separately.
Total claims of Boston stock insurance companies.
$10,000 Boylston Insurance Company (insolvent).
46, 303 Equitable Safety Insurance Company (insolvent).
98,008 Franklin Insurance Company (insolvent)..
81, 500 Manufacturers' Insurance Company (insolvent).
8, 950 Mercantile Marine Insurance Company (solvent).
239, 770 Merchants’ Insurance Company (insolvent).
15, 000 The National Insurance Company (insolvent).
6,930 The Neptune Insurance Company (insolvent).
18, 260 Shoe and Leather Insurance Company (insolvent).
35, 111 Washington Insurance Company (insolvent)....
87, 685 Total....
658, 267 Total claims of Boston insolvent stock insurance companies.... Total amount of claims of Boston solvent stock insurance companies.
633, 267 Total amount of claims of the New York stock insurance companies.
25,000 Total amount of claims of the insolvent Columbian stock insurance company,
631, 414 of New York... Total amount of claims of other stock insurance companies of New York.....
575, 043 Total amount of claims of other stock insurance companies than those of New
56, 375 York and Boston...
No speculative damages were allowed or given. To establish the just and true amount of these classes, and indeed of all classes of losses; Congress established the principle that no prospective profits, whether of earnings by speculations in trade or by catch in the case of whalers and fishermen, and no unearned freights or passage money should be considered. This has been the universal rule in estimating damages for marine torts, whether by collision or otherwise, by . courts both in this country and England. The maxim of law in such cases is, undoubtedly, restitutio in integrum to the party injured, but always with the limitation that his loss is to be made good at the time without reference to future or speculative o or damages. The rule is laid down by Mr. Justice Story in ivers reported cases. The limitation is stated in the case of the Lively, 1 Gallison's Reports, p. 315, as follows: “Upon the whole, I am well satisfied that the profits upon the supposition of a prosperous termination of the voyage ought not in any case to constitute an item for damages.” So, in the case of Williamson v. Purdy (13 Howard's Reports, 101), the Supreme Court laid down the general rule regulating damages in cases of collision to be “to allow the injured party an indemnity to the extent of the loss sustained.” This was a case of collision. The same rule in England was enunciated in the case of the Amelia (5 New Reports, p. 164), by Dr. Lushington, in the high court of admiralty. He asserts it to be “not only the doctrine of a court of admiralty, but of the courts of common law.” The same rule was affirmed early by our own Supreme Court in the case of the Amiable Nancy (3 Wheaton R., p. 346): “The probable or possible benefits of a voyage as yet in fieri can never afford a safe rule by which to estimate damages in cases of marine trespass. There is so much uncertainty in the rule itself, so many contingencies which may vary or extinguish its application, and so many difficulties in sustaining its legal correctness, that the court can not believe it proper to entertain it.” Again, the same rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Amistad da Rues (5 Wheaton, p. 385): “In cases of marine torts the court has deliberately settled that the probable profits of a voyage are not a fit amount for the ascertainment of damages.” These rules are general, and are adopted in the text-books. (Parsons on Shipping, vol. i., p. 583; Sedgwick on Damages, p. 70.)
TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN, KNOWN AS THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
Treaty between the United States and Great Britain. May 8, 1871.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
Whereas a treaty, between the United States of America Pro*. and her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, concerning the settlement of all causes of difference between the two countries, was concluded and signed at Washington by the high commissioners and i. otentiaries of the respective governments on the . day of May last; which treaty is word for word, as follows:— The United States of America and her Britannic Maj-too". esty, being desirous to provide for an amicable settlement of all causes of difference between the two countries, have for that purpose appointed their respective plenipotentiaries, that is to say: The President of the United States has appointed, on the part of the United States, as Commissioners in a Joint High Commission and Plenipotentiaries, Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State; Robert Cumming Schenck, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleniotentiary to Great Britain; Samuel Nelson, an Associate }. of the Supreme Court of the United States; EbeInezer R..." Hoar, of Massachusetts; and George Henry Williams, of Oregon; and her Britannic Majesty, on her part, has appointed as her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries, the Right Honourable George Frederick Samuel, Earl de Grey and Earl of Ripon, Wiscount Goderich, Baron Grantham, a Baronet, a Peer of the United Kingdom, Lord President of her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, etc., etc.; the Right Honourable Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, Baronet, one of her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, a Member of Parliament, a Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, etc., etc.; Sir Edward Thornton, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States of America; Sir John Alexander Macdonald, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, a member of her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, and Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of her Majesty's Dominion of
Canada; and Mountague Bernard, Esquire, Chichele
And the said plenipotentiaries, after having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following articles :
Alabama claims Whereas differences have arisen between the governto be referred to arbitration. ment of the United States and the government of her
Britannic Majesty, and still exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the “Alabama claims:”
And whereas her Britannic Majesty has authorized her high commissioners and plenipotentiaries to express, in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by her Majesty's government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels:
Now, in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States, and to provide for the speedy settlement of such claims, which are not admitted by her Britannic Majesty's government, the high contracting parties agree that all the said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vesse's,
and generically known as the “Alabama claims,” shall be Arbitrators, and referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of how to be named.
five arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner, that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the United States; one shall be named by her Britannic Majesty; his Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one; the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to name one; and his Majesty the Em
peror of Brazil shall be requested to name one. Vacancies, how In case of the death, absence, or incapacity to serve f
any or either of the said arbitrators, or, in the event of either of the said arbitrators omitting or declining (r ceasing to act as such, the President of the United States. or her Britannic Majesty, or his Majesty the King of Italy, or the President of the Swiss Confederation, or his Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, as the case may be, may forthwith name another person to act as arbitrator in the place and stead of the arbitrator originally named by such head of a state.
And in the event of the refusal or omission for two months after receipt of the request from either of the high contracting parties of his Majesty the King of Italy, or the President of the Swiss Confederation, cr his Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, to name an arbitrat r either to fill the original appointment or in the place ef one who may have died, be absent, or incapacitated, er
who may omit, decline, or from any cause cease to act as such arbitrator, his Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway shall be requested to name one or more persons, as the case may be, to act as such arbitrator or arbitrators.
The arbitrators shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland, Arbitrators to at the earliest convenient day after they shall have been where when and named, and shall proceed impartially and carefully to powers; examine and decide all questions that shall be laid before them on the part of the governments of the United States and her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall be decided by a majority of all the arbitrators.
Each of the high contracting parties shall also name Agent of each one person to attend the tribunal as its agent to represent it generally in all matters connected with the arbitration.
a majority to decide.
The written or printed case of each of the two parties, pacase etc. each accompanied by the documents, the official correspond to be given to ence, and other evidence on which each relies, shall be arbitrators. delivered in duplicate to each of the arbitrators and to the agent of the other party as soon as may be after the organization of the tribunal, but within a period not exceeding six months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty.
Within four months after the delivery on both sides etcounter of the written or printed case, either party may, in like manner, deliver in duplicate to each of the said arbitrators, and to the agent of the other party, a counter case and additional documents, correspondence, and evidence, in reply to the case, documents, correspondence, and evidence so presented by the other party.
The arbitrators may, however, extend the time for de- Time may be livering such counter case, documents, correspondence, and evidence, when, in their judgment, it becomes necessary, in consequence of the distance of the place from which the evidence to be presented is to be procured. If in the case submitted to the arbitrators either party
papers to be proshall have specified or alluded to any report or docu- duced. ment in its own exclusive possession without annexing a copy, such party shall be bound, if the other party thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish that party with a copy thereof; and either party may call upon the other through the arbitrators, to produce the originals or certified copies of any papers adduced as evidence, giving in each instance such reasonable notice as the arbitrators may require.