Shenandoah, supplement, Class A.

We estimate the value of each of these vessels at $80,000, and we allow 25 per cent. loss on account of breaking
up of voyage
We estimate the wages of the crew according to the tonnage of the vessels, at least at
And we add, moreover, for the maintenance of the captured crew and port charges.

NOTE. This table as originally presented showed a total of $973,500; but as was explained in the statement read by Mr. Bancroft Davis to the Tribuual on the 26th of August, and contained in the 26th protocol, it was a clerical error. The table is therefore given here in the corrected form.

XIV.-TABLES PRESENTED BY THE AGENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY ON THE 19TH OF AUGUST, 1872, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF THE TRIBUNAL.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.

In presenting the subjoined tables to the Tribunal, as required by the Arbitrators, the Agent of Her British Majesty has the honor to present the following points as deserving their attention:

I. Great Britain should not be considered bound to make compensation to the United States for the sum total of the losses occasioned by any of the cruisers in regard to which the Tribunal may be of the opinion that there was remissness in the performance of duty on the part of Great Britain.

II. The following principles should be observed in estimating the amount of compensation:

A. All double claims for simple losses should be rejected; such, for example, as claims presented simultaneously by owners and insurance companies, simultaneous claims for loss of freight and loss of charterparty, and other similar claims mentioned on pages 10 and 11 of volume VII of the British Appendix, and which amount to a very considerable

sum.

B. Claims for prospective gross losses of whalers should be rejected. for the reasons stated on pages 12, 13, 26, and 27 of volume VII of the Appendix. It is, indeed, not even attempted to sustain these claims in the Argument of the United States; they should, therefore, be considered as virtually abandoned.

C. It is impossible, for the reasons stated on page 13 of the same volume, to admit the claims for gross acquired profits without any of the necessary deductions.

D. Claims for gross freights of merchant-vessels should be rejected, for the reasons stated in extenso on pages 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the same volume. It will be seen that it is not even attempted to sustain them in the Argument of the United States, and they should therefore be considered as virtually abandoned.

E. Profits which it was expected to gain on merchandise in the ports to which the vessels were bound are not, for the reasons stated on page 17 of the same volume, a proper subject of compensation.

F. The reasons stated on the pages aforesaid of the same volume of the British Appendix, as well the firmly-established principles of jurisprudence, which are recognized by the courts of the United States, England, and other countries, require, as a suitable means of compensating claimants for the loss of vessels, outfits, profits, and freights, that they should be allowed the full original value of these vessels and of these outfits at the beginning of each voyage, and that they should. moreover, be allowed so much per cent. of this value, together with a sum for wages, to be calculated from the beginning of each voyage up to the day of the capture, as has been stated on pages 13 to 17 and 26 to 29 of volume VII of the Appendix.

G. The proper method of indemnifying the claimants for the loss of

their merchandise, and of the profits which they expected to realize, would be to allow them the value of such merchandise at the port of shipment, together with the interest on this same value, calculating from the commencement of the voyage up to the time of the capture.

III. It is impossible, for the reasons stated on page 17 of the aforementioned volume, to trust to the value placed by the claimants themselves upon their property; and, after having applied the above principles, it will be proper to make a suitable deduction from these claims, in order to reduce them to the sum to which they would be reduced if they were referred to assessors, or to the sum to which the Government of the United States would reduce them, in case, a gross sum having been allowed, this Government were to distribute it to the claimants.

IV. The necessity of this new reduction will appear from the following considerations:

A. The United States now admit that these claims have never been carefully sifted. It is hardly necessary to call attention to the capital importance of this admission.

B. It has been clearly shown that the claims are exaggerated, and that the statement of the claims contains very considerable miscalculations.

C. The information furnished by the revised statement of the claims is not sufficient to permit the value of the property for which compen. sation is claimed to be estimated with sufficient certainty.

D. There is an entire absence of the ordinary documents which might prove the value of the merchandise and freights, such as bills of lading, manifests, policies of insurance, &c.; and, although it is asserted that these documents have been recorded at Washington, the Government of the United States has never compared them with the claims.

V. The amounts of the claims being almost always stated in paper money or paper dollars, and the ninth article of the Treaty requiring that the compensation should be allowed in gold, it is essential to estab lish the relative value of the paper dollar and of the gold dollar at the time when the claims were first prepared. It is evident, judging from the relative values stated in one or two of the claims, that this is a question of very considerable importance.

Table No. I gives a list of double claims prepared openly and expressly, and which are obvious to any one reading the statement even cursorily.

Table No. II gives a list of all the claims for gross prospective profits and gross freights in the case of the Alabama.

Table No. III contains an analysis of the claims connected with whaling-vessels captured by the Alabama; a note has been appended explaining the table.

Table No. IV contains an analysis of the claims connected with merchant-vessels captured by the Alabama.

Table No. V contains a recapitulation of the provisional claims and allowances connected with the Alabama; a brief explanation of these allowances has been added.

Table No. VI contains an analysis of the claims connected with the vessels captured by the Florida.

Table No. VII contains a recapitulation of the provisional claims and allowances connected with the Florida; a short explanation of these allowances has been added.

The following are the cases in which double claims or other unjust claims have been openly and designedly made in the statement. In almost all cases double claims are advanced tacitly or by implication. Some of these claims will be searched for and enumerated elsewhere.

Page of revised statement.

TABLE NO. I.-List of double claims.

Name of vessel. Amount.

Remarks.

Levi Starbuck.. $23, 350 1,000

2, 150

49, 420

It is admitted that this sum should have been deducted for insurance
received; it has, however, not been deducted.

Sum which Osgood & Co. admit that they received, but which they
have not placed on the credit side of their account.
Sum equivalent to $1,565 in gold, which Mr. Rollins admits that be
received, but which he does not place on the credit side of the
account.

That is to say, twice $24,710, which sum it is admitted ought to be de
ducted, but which has been added.

Claim actually advanced twice by the same owners.
Double claim explained on page - of our first report.

Rufus, Greene & Co. refuse to place the sums received for insurance
on the credit side of the account.

The owners acknowledge that they received this sum, but it is not placed on the credit side of their account.

The owners claim the full value, without making allowance for the sums received for insurance, and the insurance companies claim it at the same time.

13, 550 The owners claim the full value, without making allowance for the sums received for insurance, and the insurance companies claim it at the same time.

The owners and insurance companies openly claim the sums at the same time.

54, 500

50,000

37,000

16,000

Do.

240 Favorite

19, 875

9.750

50,000

24,000

Do.
Do.

Do.

The necessity of deducting this sum is admitted, but it is not deducted.

Double claim, as above.

The sum of $14,673 has been added here, instead of being deducted.
Double claim, as above.

TABLE NO. II.—Claims for gross freights and expected profits in the case of the Alabama.

Page of revised statement.

TABLE NO. II.-Claims for gross receipts and expected profits, &c.—Continued.

Courser...

Loss by interruption of voyage.

$19, 845

31

Crenshaw.

Loss of freight..

32 Dorcas Prince

.....do

34

Dunkirk.

do

3,936

E. Dunbar

Loss by interruption of voyage.

88, 200

37

Emma Lane

Loss of charter-party..

26, 438

Loss of the commission on char-
ter-party.

1,324

33 | Express

Loss of freight, (at least)..

31, 129

The value of the freight is not distinguished from that of the vessel.

Do.
Do.

Vessel in ballast. See first report, p. 9.

8,780

3,000

189, 312

15,000

62

Manchester

....do

15,000

65 Nora...

.do

15, 000

There is distinction made between the value of the freight and that of the vessel.

Much more than the total claim prepared in relation to the Alabama.

The claims for expected profits amount, for the thirteen whalers, to $980,975, or to more than oneeighth of the entire claim prepared in relation to the Alabama.