Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the First Session Thirty-ninth Congress

Mr. Burlingame to Mr. Seward

No. 51.]

Legation of the United States, Peking, October 5, 1863.

Sir: I have the honor to address you in relation to the Caldera claim, just brought to my attention by the Hon. Moses H. Grinnell and other parties, in two letters, marked A and B; one private, the other official.

These parties complain of the award made in this case by the commissioners at Macao, in January, 1860, and desire that the commission may be reopened at Washington, and that I will, in the interests of justice, remove the obstacle in the way of their success which they find in my despatch No. 25, of May J 9, 1862. Wishing to do no injustice, and desirous, from my personal esteem for Mr. Grinnell, to aid him in every proper endeavor, I at once entered upon an examination of the history of the claim, as found in the legation archives and records of the commission; and that nothing might be left undone, I requested Dr. Williams, our secretary of legation, as he had been conversant with the claim from the beginning, to give me such information in relation to it as he might possess.

The result of my investigation is that I am constrained to differ from Mr. Grinnell, and to conclude that he has been misinformed as to the facts in the case. The points of difference are very clearly set forth by Dr. Williams in his letter to me, marked C.

You are aware that Mr. Reed, at Tientsin, in 1858, came to a general understanding with the Chinese government as to the payment of American claims, and that subsequently, by a convention at Shanghai, November 8, 1858, it was definitively arranged that they should pay a certain sum in gross, (500,000 taels,) which should be in full satisfaction of all the claims of our citizens up to that date. The government of the United States undertook to pay the claimants. Mr. Reed classified the claims as well as he could, but did not pass judicially upon them, only recommending the President to appoint a commission to decide them. In pursuance of this recommendation, an act of Congress, approved March 3, 1859, was passed, and the President appointed two citizens of the United States, resident in China, viz., Charles W. Bradley, L.L.D., and Oliver E. Roberts, as commissioners. They commenced their sittings at Macao, November 14, 1859, and closed them January 13, 1860, having given general satisfaction to the claimants. Claims to the amount of $1,513,797 53 came before them, for which they awarded $489,694 78, leaving an unexpended balance of nearly $200,000.

Among the claims adjudicated was that of the Caldera, being a claim of citizens of the United States for piratical depredations alleged to have been committed on the cargo of a Chilian vessel of that name. The commissioners differed in opinion as to its merits, and wrote out their views in two elaborate and able papers, which may be found in the records of the commission in the State Department. Dr. Bradley resisted the claim in toto. Mr. Roberts favored it to the actual extent of loss by the sufferers, which he, as the supporter in principle of the claim, estimated at 40 per cent., with 12 per cent, interest for five years. The whole claim was for $89,727 09. This award was approved by the minister, Mr. Ward. The above is a brief history of the case as found on the records.

I now come to the complaints of the parties dissatisfied with the award. They are compounded of law and facts, and range themselves under three principal heads:

First. That the instructions of Mr. Marcy and Mr. Cass, in 1855 and 1859, respectively, had settled the legal principle on which the claim was to be adjudicated; that the schedule made out by Mr. Reed determined the amount of the same, and that the Chinese government had recognized its validity.

Second. That the claimants had not sufficient notice of the sittings of the commission, and consequently had no time to prepare and present their case.

Third. That the proceedings were ex parte and were improperly conducted, in so far that evidence was withheld by Mr. Ward, which, had it been presented by him, would have led the commission to make a more favorable award.

As to the first complaint, it appears from the archives and from Dr. Williams’s letter that Mr. Reed in no sense considered that by classifying the claims he was adjudicating them. If so, why did he not require the Chinese government to pay the full amount of #1,211,895, as stated in his schedule? In his despatch to the department he thought 600,000 taels would be sufficient, but when the convention was settled he fixed it at 500,000 taels, and finally 498,694 proved adequate for their payment. He suggested a commission, and drew the outline for an act of Congress creating one. By this act the commission was authorized to pass upon the claims according to the “principles of justice and international law.” If the claims had been paid on the principle suggested by the complainants, the pro rata sum they would have received would have been $16,655; so that the principle contended for by them goes too far, unless they would make their case an exception.

There is even less ground for founding a claim on the instructions of Mr. Marcy and Mr. Cass. These high officers, animated by a desire to secure justice to our citizens, pressed the diplomatic representative of the government in China in favor of the claimants; but they could not have imagined that their instructions in this respect would be held to override an act of Congress subsequently passed in reference to those very claims. As to the assertion that the Chinese government had recognized the validity of the claims, Dr. Williams and the archives both show that no list was ever laid before them; but, on the contrary, they expressly refused to enter into such questions, and paid a sum in gross to be rid of them forever; and even went further, refusing to complicate themselves, even remotely, in liquidating the claims, by declining to receive back any surplus that might remain after payment. The Caldera’s claim, therefore, came before the commission on its own merits.

With regard to the second complaint, touching the want of time to prepare their case, Dr. Williams shows that there was ample time. As early as March, 1859, the act of Congress was passed directing where the commission should sit; and besides that general intimation to all interested parties, nearly a year before, in May 27, 1858, he had addressed a notice to Messrs Russell & Co. and Nye Brothers & Co., agents in China for the insurance companies, asking them to prepare their evidence in this case. To this the claimants had responded by attorney, and documents were handed in on their side to the extent of nearly thirty papers, to which were added as many more furnished by the legation.

As to the protest alleged to have been made by Russell & Co., there is no evidence in the legation that any such protest was ever made. Dr. Williams distinctly states that when he paid the first dividend on this claim no protest was made, and he has no recollection of hearing of it subsequently.

With regard to the third complaint against Mr. Ward and the reference to the conduct of the case, I have also to say that the intimations that he withheld the instructions of his government does that gentleman great injustice. He did not make his decision until after reading them, and Dr. Williams, who was cognizant of the circumstances, states that they were spoken of at the time to the commissioners; and, moreover, the copy of the award quoting them is partly in the handwriting of Mr. Roberts. Dr. Williams bears his most earnest testimony to the carefulness and integrity of all Mr. Ward’s proceedings in the case. He did all he could for the claimants, as did every member of the legation; and in the Caldera’s case there was more evidence adduced than in any other before the commission.

From these facts it appears that this claim was fully considered and decided under the most favorable circumstances for the complainants, who received two-thirds of the sum originally claimed, when it seems to me they were not entitled to one farthing. I agree entirely with the able opinion of Dr. Bradley against the whole claim; and also with the antecedent opinion of Mr. McLane, in November, 1854, in the same sense. To both these opinions I most respectfully refer you.

I am informed that Mr. Ward held views coincident with theirs, but that he felt constrained by the instructions from the State Department to decide in favor of the parties to the extent of their actual losses by the alleged laches of the Chinese government. After this award, to learn that a still further claim should be put forward fills me with amazement, and makes me certain that my distin guished friend, Mr. Grinnell, has been misinformed as to the facts of the case.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

ANSON BURLINGAME.

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State) Washington, D. C.

[Enclosure A.]

Mr. Grinnell to Mr. Burlingame.

New York, June 15, 1863.

Sir: We beg leave to address you on the subject of the Caldera, one of the claims embraced by the agreement or convention dated Shanghai, November 8, 1858, supplementary to the treaty of Tientsin, and in which we are interested to a considerable amount.

You are well aware that the payment which the Chinese government, by that agreement, promised to make, and did in fact make, for the satisfaction of private claims of citizens of the United States, was of a sum in gross intended to cover all such private claims to the date of the treaty.

It appears to have been based upon a schedule presented by the American minister, Mr. Reed, but the terms of the agreement and the accompanying correspondence serve to show that the payments of China were to be a full satisfaction, not of the specified claims only, but of all others, if any, which might then exist, transferring to the government of the United States the sole power and duty of distributing the indemnity money among the claimants, in accordance with its own views of justice and right, and relieving the Chinese government of all further reclamation or responsibility in the premises. That is to say, the sum paid was a fund for the satisfaction of all just and reasonable claims, committed to the United States in trust, to be distributed among the parties beneficially intended in the fund. To this end, the United States proceeded, by act of Congress of March 3, 1853, to establish an ex parte commission of two citizens of the United States to pass upon the claims in question, subject to the approbation of the American minister in China. Of the claims allowed by the commissioners, and which have been discharged as the stipulated payments on debentures of the Chinese government were made, the total amount is $498,694, leaving a surplus of indemnity paid or payable of about $200,000 in the hands of the United States.

Much of the surplus, it would appear, is the result of the commissioners having rejected, in whole or in part, claims which had been considered valid by Mr. Reed, which were noted on his schedule of claims, and the validity of which was thus, in a certain sense, recognized by the Chinese government. Such a case was that of the Caldera, being the claim of citizens of the United States for piratical depredations on the cargo of the vessel of that name. This claim was admitted in principle and allowed in part, but was disallowed in part on objections which we feel assured we could have met but for the fact that on account of the sessions of the commissioners being held in China, and of the brief time allowed by the act of Congress for the hearing of the cases, we had no sufficient opportunity of presenting our views, either to the commissioners or to the minister, (Mr. Ward.) We confidently believe that injustice has been done to us, and that this would fully appear to the commissioners and the minister, if the case could be fully and properly heard.

In this conviction we are petitioners to Congress for relief in the premises, which relief, in a form perfectly unexceptionable, we should obtain but for the obstacle interposed “of an unfavorable opinion of the American legation in China.” What we ask of the government is to afford us the opportunity (which we have not yet enjoyed) of being fully heard in the facts and merits of our whole claim, either before the commission revived or before the Secretary of State.

This we respectfully but earnestly pray you to favor, not only as an act of justice to ourselves, but also to the intention and end of the Chinese government.

We have, &c, &c,

M. H. GRINNELL, President Sun Insurance Company, and for Other Companies.

His Excellency Anson Burlingame, &c.,&c.,&c.

Memorandum.—Award of the Caldera claim, of the Sun Mutual Insurance Company, represented by Messrs. Russell & Co., in China.

Sun Mutual Insurance Company:
Claim—834,970 08, at 40 per cent., is.	$13,988 03
Five years’ interest, at 12 or 60 per cent., is.	8,392 82
	22,380 85
Due on the principal and unpaid		$20,982 05
Five years’ interest, 60 per cent., to be added		12,589 20
		33,571 25
New York Mutual Insurance Company, represented by Messrs. Russell & Co.:
Claim—$22,000, at 40 per cent., is	8,800 00
Five years’ interest, at 12 or 60 per cent., is	5,280 00
	14,080 00
Due on the principal and unpaid		13,220 00
Five years’ interest, 60 per cent., to be added		7,932 00
		21,152 00
Mercantile Insurance Company:
Claim—$13,912, at 40 per cent., is.	5,564 80
Five years’ interest, at 60 per cent., is	3,338 88
	8,903 68
Due on the principal and unpaid		8,347 20
Five years’ interest to be added, 60 per cent		5,008 22
		13,355 42

[Enclosure B.]

Mr. Grinnell to Mr. Burlingame

New York, June 16, 1863.

My Dear Sir: Under my official signature, dared the 15th instant, I have already had the honor to address you with reference to the Caldrra’s claims, which were partially adjudicated and forty per cent, awarded: which award, however, was received under protest by Messrs. Russell & Co., advising the claimants Lad recourse to Washington for further redress.

’Tis well for me, perhaps, to state, in order to familiarize yourself at once with the Caldera case, that a claim was set up by the government of the United States, decided by Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, to be a valid one, to hold the Chinese government responsible for indemnity. Instructions were then given to the resident minister in China, the Rev. Dr Parker, to present the claims, which he did without a successful result.

Subsequently, however, the Rev. Mr. Reed, occupying the position of minister, negotiated a treaty, in which provision for the payment of the Caldera’s claims was made and guaranteed through the customs of Canton, Shanghai, and Fuhchau, and as received applied by instalments to the liquidation of adjudicated claims. The Caldera’s claims, among others, were submitted to a board of commissioners in China, appointed by the government at Washington, for adjudication of claims—the American minister, the Hon. Mr. Ward, acting as umpire.

Meanwhile it became necessary to bring the Caldera’s claims before the government at Washington for decision upon the legality of the claims under the American treaty with China, and also under the law of nations. Mr. Cass, then Secretary of State, lost no time in deciding the claims to be valid, not only under the treaty with China, but also under the law of nations, and instructions were sent to the resident minister,. Mr. John E. Ward, to so consider it. This settled the principle and disposed of the case, so far as the government was concerned.

The case then, among others, came up before the two commissioners; Mr. Roberts decided in favor, and Mr. Bradley against it; the Hon. Mr. Ward, meanwhile, unaccountably and strangely withholding the decision of the government from the commissioners. Mr. Roberts awarded 40 per cent., with interest.

Under the instructions Mr. Ward received from the Secretary of State, he of course confirmed Mr. Roberts’s award; the latter, however, was kept in total ignorance of the instructions of the government to Mr. Ward, which undoubtedly would have aided the commissioners in reaching a very different result.

We now complain of the amount adjudicated for the reason that time was not allowed, through notice from the commissioners, to prepare an argument to cover the case when under their examination; and owing to the board not being conversant with insurance, did not consider the merits of the marine loss through the protest, with full evidence and testimony before them; thus the interest of the claimants suffered in the absence of any protection. The claimants now petition and pray of the government to reopen the commission at Washington for a hearing upon their case, on the ground that twelve months’ notice at least should have been given to the parties in the distance, and afforded them time to have placed before the commissioners a full argument upon the equitable and legal amount to which they were entitled. If it could be adjudicated at Washington, it would be the shortest mode of settlement; it would also seem as if, with all the testimony in the United States for a reconsideration before commissioners at Washington, or before the Secretary of State, who may be authorized to act through an act of Congress, it might be speedily settled here.

Mr. Robert S. Sturges and D. N. Spooner, in China at the time of the destruction of the Caldera, and latter then United States consul, both of whom were partners of Russell & Co. at the time, and sided strongly in favor of the claims without abatement, still declare the full amount with interest should be collected.

Now, you will pardon me for asking if it is right and just for these claims to be debarred a hearing, when such injustice has been so monstrously made apparent, particularly so when considered with the fact that the minister, Mr. Ward, withheld from the commissioners his instructions to require indemnity—at the same time provision already made by the Chinese government to indemnify the claims in full, leaving no adjudication really necessary, as the underwriters had paid the assured in full, for the face of the policies. It would seem a hard case indeed, if, ample funds still existing and provided to pay these very identical claims, under a special decision of the government at Washington, equity and right should fail to correct the oversight and errors of the commissioners under Mr. Ward’s administration; and I cannot, under the facts and circumstances set forth, for a moment doubt you will withhold your kind offices in recommending the case to Washington, which will readily settle the matter. Indeed, it was in a favorable train for such an end when your despatch of the 19th of May, 1862, reached the Secretary of State and frustrated, for the time being, the steps already taken, through the Committee on Foreign Relations. Here the matter rests at present to afford the claimants time to address you, with the hope you may reconsider the matter, and report to the government favoring their petition for a hearing at Washington.

Giving the case immediate attention, and report, by an early mail to enable the claimants to renew their efforts in December next, you will confer a very great favor on, dear sir, yours very truly,

M. H. GRIHNELL.

His Excellency A. Burlingame, United States Minister, &c.,&c.,&c.

[Enclosure C]

Mr. Williams to Mr. Burlingame.

Peking, October 1, 1863.

Sir: I have carefully read the two letters of Mr. Grinnell, dated June 15th and 16th ultimo, which you placed in my hands, and in compliance with your request, I now make a few remarks upon them, explanatory of the claim of the underwriters of the Caldera, and its decision by the commissioners of claims in January, I860.

In the letter of June 15 Mr. Grinnell remarks, in reference to the convention of claims, signed November 8, 1858, that the sum given by the Chinese government was intended to coverall private claims of American citizens to that date, estimated from a schedule presented to their officers by Mr. Reed; and, to quote his words, “was a fund for the satisfaction of all just and reasonable claims committed to the United States in trust to be distributed among the parties beneficially interested in the fund.” This explanation of the principle of the convention is no doubt a just one; and yet if he means thereby to convey the impression that the Chinese negotiators granted so much money out of the duties on American commerce to the United States minister with which to pay a certain number of claims of American citizens presented to them, Mr. Grinnell has been misinformed as to the details of the negotiations. No schedule was ever presented to the Chinese officers, nor did they ever ask for a list of the claims; and when questioned as to a participation in their adjudication, declined to have anything to do with the decisions. The amount inserted in the convention was reduced by $140,000 from the sum first demanded, in consequence of further information obtained by Mr. Reed respecting the claims, and not at the request of the Chinese. The United States government was made the sole judge of the justice of the claims, and the Chinese have never made any inquiry as to the disposal of the money.

It is incorrect, therefore, to infer, that by presenting the schedule of claims to the Chinese officers they accepted them; and that by the same act Mr. Reed considered them all to be valid; for, in fact, no schedule was ever laid before them, nor did Mr. Reed examine them judicially in reference to their accuracy or validity. He merely submitted them to the State Department, with such explanations and classifications as seemed desirable for understanding the whole subject. In no sense can it be said, therefore, as Mr. Grinnell remarks, “that the validity of the claims was ever recognized by the Chinese government.” On the contrary, when this particular case was presented to them, in 18,56 and 1857, they rejected it peremptorily as not coming under the treaty. In reality, they paid the demands made upon them by the English and French ministers as well as the American, under pressure; and never admitted that there was any justice in any of them, nor would they voluntarily have ever paid a single claim.

The case of the Caldera, consequently, came before the board of commissioners of claims, as all the others did, entirely upon its own merits; and the members of that board never had an idea that their awards on it or any other claim were to be influenced by what the Chinese thought of them. It had been put out of their power to offer even an opinion of the justice of the award in a single instance.

In his letter Mr. Grinnell complains that the claimants for the Caldera suffered injustice because they were not heard before the commissioners or minister; but in truth this case was illustrated by more evidence, direct and collateral, than any other one presented—not only as to the condition of the ship and cargo after the storm, the circumstances of the several attacks of the pirates, and the disposal of the cargo after she had been pillaged, but by full arguments in regard to the legal and international features involved in the transaction. All the evidence obtained at Hong Kong, Macao, Kulan, and Canton, in 1854, at the time the casualty occurred, was before the board, showing all the known facts; and so, too, were all the arguments contained in the correspondence of Mr. McLane and Mr. Parker with Chinese officials, and of the former with the agents in China of the underwriters, and the elaborate argument of Mr. F. B. Cutting, of December 3, 1855, in behalf of the case. All the vouchers, accounts, policies and affidavits pertaining to it were on hand and spread before them; and it is nearly certain that no new fact could have been discovered if the case had been argued in the United States, for the actors in the transaction were not there; nor can I imagine what new arguments the claimants would have brought forward. It is difficult to perceive wherein they have lost any advantage by having their case decided in China.

Complaint is also made in these letters of want of time to prepare the case for a hearing by the commissioners, owing to the distance, the limited period of their session, and inadequate notice. The fact of distance could not have been a hardship, for the claimants knew as early as March, 1859, when the act of Congress was passed, that the board was directed to sit in China, and that their case was to come before it; and, consequently, that no time need be lost to prepare their proof. But nearly a year before, on the 27th of May, 1858, I addressed a note to Messrs. Russell & Co., and Nye Brothers & Co., as agents for the insurance companies, asking them to prepare and furnish evidence respecting the ownership of the property, and circumstances of the loss of the Caldera, that it might be deposited in the archives, to be used in case the claims were adjusted with the Chinese government. In reply to this note, apparently, Mr. Cutting, their attorney, sent three documents, September 10, 3858, to Mr. Reed, explanatory of the case, and after the board commenced its sittings at Macao, Russell & Co., in December 5, 1859, added many more vouchers and accounts, making in all about thirty separate papers and pleadings, touching upon this one claim. There were nearly as many more besides, scattered through the archives of the legation, which were accessible to the commissioners.

It is always difficult to disprove negative assertions, but in this case I cannot see how the distance, or the limited session of the commission, operated against the claimants, for they had a longer notice than they now say would have sufficed, and seem to have fully availed themselves of it. If oral pleading was desirable to secure a successful issue, as Mr. Grinnell intimates, why did not the agents in China come before the board and plead the case? There can be little ground for supposing that either the commissioners or minister lacked any evidence or argument to enable them to come to an intelligent decision.

Among the papers now on file relating to the Caldera, there is no copy of a protest or appeal from Messrs. Russell &, Co. when they received the award; nor when I paid them the first dividend of $21,950 62 in January, 1860, did I receive a protest, and I have no recollection of hearing of it at any time after that date. Messrs. Alvord & Co., whose claim for losses at the same time was decided on the same principle, made no appeal against their award.

The remarks in Mr. Grinnell’s letter relating to the decision of the Caldera’s case need some correction, for he seems to have been misinformed. As soon as the board commenced its sittings, November 14, 1859, all the documents relating to it, as well as others, were handed to the commissioners out of the archives, and, as appears by their journal, those concerning this case were discussed on two or three occasions. Their views concerning it finally differed so entirely that they deemed it best to write out their reasons at length and submit them to Mr. Ward as umpire. The two documents number forty-six folio pages, and recite the particulars connected with the piracy and collusion of the officiais, and enter at length into the question as to the liability of the Chinese government to make compensation for the injury done by its lawless subjects, the whole drawn up so carefully as to render it almost unnecessary to refer elsewhere for information or argument.

Mr. Ward was at first inclined to take Dr. Bradley’s view of the case; but when the despatch of Mr. Marcy, of October 5, 1855, was referred to, and its subsequent confirmation by Mr. Cass, in May, 1859, he remarked with some degree of satisfaction that the decision was thereby taken out of his hands, and, as he observes in his written award, “his duty will be discharged by ascertaining as near as possible what have been the actual losses of our citizens.” Mr. Grinnell seems to lay so much stress on the words actual losses in Mr. Marcy’s despatch, as to overlook the principle that they should be construed by the context of circumstances, and to be defined and to include and mean only those losses caused by the pirates, Mr. Marcy could hardly have intended that the Emperor of China should be made responsible for damages by tempests and leakage, even if intimately connected with these by pirates in time and place. But Mr. G. almost assumes that the commissioners or Mr. Ward had no option left as to their decision, but must pay the whole claim of $89,727 09, because it was all an actual loss. This idea he derives from the postulate, on the one hand, that the Chinese government had accepted the schedule of claims presented to them by Mr. Reed, and had paid a sum of money to liquidate them, which were thereby supposed to have been declared valid; and, on the other hand, because the Secretary of State acknowledged this one in particular to be a just claim. He then concludes that as these two principal parties had thus acted, there was no real authority left with the board of claims to adjudicate it and no occasion for them to interfere.

But it has been shown that no list was presented to the Chinese by Mr. Reed, nor did he decide on the validity of one of them, and that the commissioners were made by the act of Congress the sole judges of all claims presented to them. Mr. Ward made his decision after reading his instructions, which I know were spoken of to them at the time, for I was cognizant of all the circumstances; and, moreover, the copy of this decision now on file is partly in the handwriting of Mr. Roberts.

What advantage Mr. Ward proposed to himself or any one else by withholding Mr. Marcy’s despatch I cannot conceive, for he could not take the case out of the commissioners’ hands, and their written statements prove that they decided it on its own merits. Mr. Roberts’s favorable award is based on broad grounds of international law, and implied protection and fulfilment of treaty rights by the Chinese government, which obliged them to act more energetically to remedy the piracies common along their coasts, and the pleading concludes with the admission that the claimants “are entitled to all equity which the facts of the case can possibly give. Their loss has been absolute and without contingency or construction.”

He then indicates the basis for an award: “Equity, however, requires that the allowance of the claim should be made with a deduction. The underwriters and others should not be placed in a better position than if no piracy had occurred. The ship suffered heavily in the hurricane, and a large claim on the insurance offices would have been made. The vessel had four feet of water in the hold, and had been much strained; the masts, sails, and rigging had been nearly lost before the pirates came alongside. It is impossible now to say what the exact amount of repairs, salvage or general average would have been, or what portion of the cargo was damaged by the water in the hold or other leakage. After considering all the circumstances and taking testimony, I deem it fit to allow but forty per cent, of the claim on the policy covering the hull, and the same on the policies covering the cargo, with five years’ interest at twelve per cent, to the underwriters in the United States.

“The rejection of this claim in 1854 (on grounds which, in my opinion, overlook the distinguishing features of it) has necessitated a careful review. I have endeavored to view the subject as if it was now presented for the first time. I have regarded it merely as a legal, question, which requires a judicial solution according to the best of my ability.”

This award was accepted in principle and amount by Mr. Ward, but I think that neither of the commissioners would have at any time regarded Mr. Marcy’s despatch as superior, or contravening the act of Congress which authorized the board of claims. They would rather have explained it according to the act, that being the highest authority. I do not know when they first learned the purport of the despatch, but the charge brought against Mr. Ward of withholding it seems to be both unfounded and unnecessary.

He assisted them whenever it was requested, but as the Caldera was the only claim on which they differed, that assistance amounted merely to furnishing-documents. There was no oversight or error on the part of any one in deciding the claims such as these letters describe, and particularly this one. Mr. Ward regarded himself as appointed by the act merely to approve their finding when it was unanimous, or decide which was just when it differed, not at all authorized to reject or modify it, or make one of his own. I may perhaps be allowed to add, that I know how much he endeavored to act impartially; also, that the commissioners took all possible precautions in forming their decisions. I heard several Americans in China, claimants and non-claimants, and some, too, whose claims had been cut down, express their approval of the carefulness and diligence exhibited in investigating the claims and the fairness of the awards. There was no end to be gained by the examiners in withholding money which seemed to be justly due the claimants, for neither of them would be benefited, and Mr. Ward, especially, could have no object in withholding his instructions.

There were several claimants whose cases were rejected entirely, as not coming within the letter of the act, because they were not American citizens, or for other reasons, to whom this rejection was a great hardship. They were all included in the first schedule made out by Mr. Reed, and their losses were as actual as those of the insurers of the Caldera, and perhaps more serious to them. Some of these rejected claims were those of native employes, who stood by their masters in circumstances of great danger, and confided their property to them on the assurance of its safety, only to see it consumed without remedy, while, too, a number of their countrymen in English employ, and sufferers in like manner, have been compensated. All these claims were (according to Mr. G.) considered alike valid by Mr. Reed; and if the commissioners had allowed them as they were claimed, the pro rata sum which the Caldera’s claimants would have been entitled to by this distribution was only $16,655. Moreover, Mr. Marcy’s despatch said nothing about interest, but the five years’ interest at twelve per cent, paid on the award made the payment altogether nearly two-thirds of the claim.

The point of the case in which Mr. Grinnell’s opinion seems to be that the despatch was to be considered absolute in regard to this claim, irrespective of all investigation as to its merits by the commissioners, and that as the Chinese government gave a sum of money to the United States government through Mr. Reed, after accepting the schedule of claims, all of it was to be divided among the claimants, more or less, but in the Caldera’s case apparently not pro rata.

I have endeavored to show his errors as to facts, and that the case was fully shown in the evidence and argument before the board, that the claimants had ample time granted them to prepare and present their pleading, and that neither oversight nor injustice was done them in the premises. There is, therefore, not a sufficient ground to be found for reopening the case, nor for paying the additional sum now asked.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

S. WELLS WILLIAMS,

Hon. Anson Burlingame, &c.,&c.,&c.