Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1872, Part II, Volume III

Annex C.–Report of the committee appointed by the Board of Trade.

In accordance with the request of the Board of Trade, we have examined the Revised List of Claims presented by the United States Agent on the 15th of April last, and have to offer the following observations on them in continuation of our First Report:

The aggregate amount of claims contained in the Revised Statement is $25,547,161. It is composed of a claim of $5,808,066, for increased insurance premiums; a claim of $479,033, which is styled “miscellaneous;” and a claim of $19,260,062, for losses sustained in respect of the vessels destroyed by the cruisers.

As regards the claim for “increased insurance premiums,” it is a claim for alleged indirect losses, with which we have no concern. It may not, however, be unworthy of notice that the claim has been increased from $1,120,795, in the Former Statement, to $5,808,066 in the Revised Statement, between the respective dates of the 4th of October and the 15th of March.

As regards the before-mentioned “miscellaneous” claim, it is to be found at p. 290 of the Revised Statement, and consists of the following items:

1. A claim of $11,788, which is described as follows: “For detention of ship at Philadelphia, unable to procure freight by reason of the depredations of the Alabama and other insurgent cruisers.”

2. A claim of $15,761 for the detention of another ship, which is described in exactly the same way as the last claim.

3. A claim of $55,000 “for loss of vessel captured by insurgent cruisers V. H. Joy and Music (sailing under letters of marque) near the mouth of the Mississippi.”

4. A claim of $95,000 “for expenses and loss on account of the breaking up of the regular voyage of the bark Almina, the ship Daylight, and the ship Julia G. Tyler.”

5. A claim of $300,032 for damages, breaking up business of “dispatch-line of China packets.”

6. A claim of $1,452 by John Burns, Manchester, England, for his deceased son Joseph Burns, “for loss of one hundred and eightieth share in catchings of the whale-ship Hedaspe, of New Bedford, which he (the claimant) states was sunk by the Alabama with all hands on board.”

As regards the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these claims, it is manifest at once, from the above-mentioned description of them, taken from the Statement itself, not merely that the damages, which are not and cannot be attributed in any definite degree to any one or more of the Confederate cruisers, are of far too remote a character to be allowed, but also that these claims are, from their very nature, entirely and essentially claims for indirect losses, with which we have nothing to do.

As regards the third claim, there is no doubt that it must have been inadvertently inserted, for the cruisers V. H. Joy and Music therein referred to are not comprised in the list of cruisers mentioned in the United States Case or Counter Case, and are not stated to have been in any way connected with any act or default on the part of the British Government.¹

As regards the claim by John Burns for his deceased son Joseph Burns, it will be enough to observe, in the first place, that it is apparently advanced by a British subject; in the second place, that, considering the nature, variety, and extent of the demands generally put forward, one can scarcely doubt that, if the whale-ship Hedaspe had been in fact destroyed by the Alabama, there would have been other claims advanced, besides one for the loss of only the one hundred and eightieth share in the catchings of the vessel; and, in the third place, that the claim is as remarkable for the absence of all material particulars in the statement, as it is for the improbability of the fact on which it is alleged to have been founded.

For these reasons we are of opinion that the whole of this “miscellaneous” claim of $479,033 must undoubtedly be rejected.

There remains then to consider the claim of $19,260,062.

This amount exceeds the corresponding sum in the Statement on which we have already reported by $1,359,429, the excess being due partly to claims in respect of vessels not claimed for nor mentioned in the Former Statement, and partly to additional claims being put forward in respect of vessels mentioned in that Statement.

Before, however, analyzing this excess, and stating the result at which we have arrived, it will be useful to make some observations which present themselves on comparing, with the Revised Statement, the Original List of claims which was sent by Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams in August 1866, and also the extension of this, as presented by the President to the House of Representatives in April, 1869, and which are to be found in the fourth volume of “the Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain transmitted to the Senate of the United States.”

These lists of claims not only strongly confirm the opinion we expressed in our First Report, that the estimate we there made of the value of the vessels was probably a very liberal one, but also show in a remarkable manner how since the year 1866 the claimants have in most cases enormously increased their estimate of the losses alleged to have been sustained by them.

We will cite some of the more striking instances, calling the list of claims sent to Mr. Adams the “Original List,” the list presented to the House of Representatives, the “United States Amended List,” the Statement on which we have already reported the “Former Statement,” and the revised list of claims on which we are now reporting “the Revised Statement.”

The Alert.—The claim as stated in the “Original List” amounted to $57,859; in the “Revised Statement” (p. 1) it amounts to $202,726. In the “Original List” there was a claim of $30,000 for “interruption of voyage;” but now, in addition to that amount, there is claimed a sum of $144,869 for “prospective earnings.”

The Anna Schmidt.—This vessel was in the “Original List” valued at $30,000, which is somewhat less than the average valuation we have allowed in proportion to her tonnage, but in the “Revised Statement” (p. 13) the sum claimed in respect of the vessel is double that amount.

The Golden Eagle.—In the “Original List” the owners claimed for the vessel $36,000, and for freight $26,000. Our average estimate in proportion to her tonnage was about $45,000. In the “Revised Statement” (p. 40) the owners claim $86,000 for vessel and freight, thus increasing their claim by nearly 50 per cent.

The Highlander.—She was a vessel of 1,049 tons, and was in ballast. In the “Original List” two insurance companies advanced claims for insurances to the extent of $30,000, which was probably about the value of the vessel, but in the “Revised Statement” (p. 46), the owners put forward an additional claim for the ship to the extent of $84,000. This claim is, however, far less extravagant than the claim for freight, which in the “Original List” amounted to $6,000; whereas in the “Revised Statement” it exceeds $68,000, and is advanced without any deduction whatever, although the ship was in ballast at the time of her capture. It will be found that at pages 6 and 27 of our first report we have specially commented on the character and extent of the extraordinary demands put forward in respect of this vessel.

The Ocean Rover.—In the “Original List” the owners claimed $10,400 for value of ship, loss of oil on board, and damages for breaking up of voyage. The claims now advanced in the “Revised Statement” (p. 68) in respect of the same losses exceed $193,000, the difference between the original claim and the more recent one being made up entirely of “double claims for single losses.”

The Kate Cory.—In the “Original List” the owners claimed $27,800 for the value of the brig, outfit, and oil on board, and there was also a claim of $1,820 for the value of “reasonable prospective catch of oil.” In the “Revised Statement” (p. 51) the amounts insured have, as usual, been added to the claims by the owners, and there has been inserted a claim of $19,293 for loss of “prospective catch,” so that the original claim for $29,620 has grown to $56,474.

The Lafayette, No. 2.—In the “Original List” the owners valued the ship and outfit at $24,000, which is less than our average valuation according to her tonnage; and the secured earnings at $10,475; but in the “Revised Statement” (p. 55) the claim put forward in respect of ship and outfit and secured earnings is more than $89,000; and the prospective earnings which were in the “Original List” valued at $33,446, are now estimated at a sum exceeding $50,000. The original claim for $69,471 has grown to $141,858.

The Rockingham.—The claim in the “Original List amounted to $105,000, whereas the claim in the “Revised Statement” (p. 74) exceeds $225,000. This is also one of the vessels which we selected in our first report (page 23) as a striking example of the exorbitant nature of some of the claims. There can be no doubt that the original claim was very extravagant, but in the “Revised Statement” it has been doubled by improperly adding the insurances to the alleged values.

The Union Jack.—In the “Original List” it is stated that G. Potter, after deducting the amount received from the Atlantic Insurance Company, claims the sum of $7,584; but in the “Revised Statement (page 111) he claims the sum of $34,526 without making any deduction for insurances, although, the insurance companies at the same time claim $32,014 in respect of the amount insured by them; and it therefore clearly follows that a sum, at any rate exceeding $26,000, is claimed twice over.

The Catherine.—In the “Original List” the owners claimed about $45,000 for vessel and secured earnings, but made no claim in respect of prospective earnings. Now in the Revised Statement (p. 229) there is a claim put forward of $35,829 for loss of vessel and cargo, over and above $31,676, the alleged amount of insurances by the owners, which is also at the same time claimed by the insurance company. In addition to this there is a claim for prospective earnings exceeding $19,600, so that the original claim of $45,805 has now grown to the enormous sum of $272,108.

The Favorite.—She was a bark of 393 tons. In the “Original List” the Atlantic Insurance Company, as insurers and assignees of the owners, claimed for loss on vessel and outfit $40,000, which there can be little doubt was the full value. In the “Revised Statement” (p. 240) the claims in respect of the vessel and outfit amount altogether to $110,000. The master in the “Original List” claimed $1,498 for the loss of his effects; but now he claims for the loss of his personal property, $2,239, and for loss of interest in oil and bone $2,709.

The Isaac Howland.—In the “Original List” the claim for prospective earnings was $53,075, but in the “Revised Statement” (p. 247) it has grown to nearly four times that sum, namely to $196,158. Moreover in the “Original List” the owners claimed $65,000 for ship and outfit, subject to abatement for insurance; whereas in the “Revised Statement” they claim the same sum, but protest against any diminution of claim by reason of insurance obtained by them, although the insurance companies claim at the same time the whole amount insured by them.

The General Williams.—In the “Original List” the owners claimed $40,503 as damages by the destruction of the vessel, over and above $44,673, the amount of insurances received by them. In the “Revised Statement” (p. 241) there is added to the amount of insurances a sum of $85,177, the claim being in this manner all but doubled. There are also added the following claims: A claim by the owners for “prospective earnings amounting to $196,807; a claim by the master for loss of “prospective catch, time, and occupation,” amounting to $20,000; a similar claim by the mate, amounting to $10,000; another claim of $30,000, for insurances on vessel and outfit; and, finally, the sum of $16,000 for insurances by the owners on the vessel’s prospective earnings. In this manner the original claim, which was less than $66,000, has grown to the sum of $406,934, and has therefore been increased more than sixfold.

The instances we have given are sufficient to indicate that, since the year 1866, the owners have, to a very remarkable extent, raised their demands in respect of the vessels and their earnings; but the table (No. 1) appended to this report, which exhibits the amounts claimed in 1866 in the “Original List;” those claimed in 1869 in “the List presented to the United States House of Representatives;” those comprised in the “Former Statement” of November, 1871; and those claimed in the Revised Statement of March, 1872, will show, in a far more striking manner, to what an enormous extent almost every claim has grown at each of these successive stages.

After these preliminary observations, we proceed to analyze the revised claim of $19,260,062; and, following the plan adopted at page 13 of our first report, we begin by directing attention to and correcting some mistakes or errors which appear to have crept into the figures in the “Revised Statement,” as they had done in the former statement.

The following have the effect of improperly diminishing the claim, and require its total amount to be increased:

Commonwealth.—The addition of the items (page 131–137) gives	$453,645
The amount claimed in the Summary (page 337) is	452,042
Thus giving a difference, which has to he added, of		$1,603
Corriss Ann.—The addition of the items (page 147) gives	25,400
The total amount of the claim is, however, stated at	25,000
Thus giving a difference, which has to he added, of		400
Morning Star.—In the Revised Statement, page 64, the claim advanced is $5,614.40, gold, whereas on the statement on which we have reported it was $7,744, currency, thus giving rise to an apparent difference of $2,129.60. But, for the purpose of comparing the two statements with one another, it will he proper to keep the amount in currency, and therefore necessary to add		2,130
Therefore the total sum to be added is		4,133

On the other hand, the following errors have the effect of improperly increasing the claim, and require its total amount to be reduced:

Courser.—The addition of the items (page 31) gives	$32,307
The amount claimed in the Summary (page 336) is	33,307
Thus giving a difference, which has to be deducted, of		$1,000
Levi Starbuck.—(Page 59.) In this claim there is an error to the amount of $23,350 of the strangest character. After the claim by the owners there is inserted a memorandum that the insurances effected amounted to $23,350; a memorandum which was indeed not necessary, inasmuch as that same amount is claimed by three insurance companies; yet that sum of $23,350, (so referred to in the memorandum,) as well as the like amount claimed by the insurance companies, is made to form part of the total claim. This strange mistake must, of course, be corrected by deducting the sum of		23,350
Ocean River.—(Page 68.) An exactly similar mistake to that which we have just noted presents itself in this case. The sum of $24,710, which is referred to as “the amount of the insurances” being added, although the same amount is claimed by the insurance companies. We have, therefore, to deduct the sum of		24,710
Sea Lark.—(Page 78.) An exactly similar mistake of adding to the amounts claimed by the insurance companies the sums mentioned by the owners as “the amounts of the insurances” presents itself in this case, and renders necessary a deduction of1		7,980
Union Jack.—The addition of the items (page 110) gives	172,175
The amount claimed in the Summary (page 336) is	172,235
Thus giving a difference, which has to be deducted, of		60
Crown Point.—The addition of the items (page 148) gives	417,903
The amount claimed in the summary (page 337) is	417,913
Thus giving a difference, which has to be added, of		10
M. J. Colcord.—(Page 186.) There is an error in addition (which we notice only for the purpose of keeping our figures accurate) amounting to		1
To these errors have to be added those adverted to at page 13 of our former report, which have not been corrected, viz, those occurring in the cases of the General Williams, Gypsy, and Pearl, which errors are repeated in the “Revised Statement,” and amount to		123,346
These errors require, therefore, the claim to be altogether reduced by the sum of		180,457

We have, therefore, to deduct the last-mentioned amount from, and to add the before-mentioned sum of $4,133 to $19,260,062, which is the total amount of the claims in the “Revised Statement,” exclusive of the claims styled “miscellaneous,” and those for “increased insurance premiums.” Having made the necessary subtraction and addition, we arrive at the corrected amount of	$19,083,738
As compared with the corrected amount of the claim in the “Former Statement,” as ascertained at page 13 of our first report	17,763,910
Showing therefore an increase of claim in the “Revised Statement,” amounting to	1,319,828

Adopting, as in our first report, the classes A, B, C, D, E, F, which we there defined, and under which we arranged the various vessels, the corrected amounts of claims in the “Former” and in the “Revised Statements” respectively, together with the increase of claim in the latter statement, may be exhibited in the following form:

	Corrected amount of claim under Revised Statement.	Corrected amount of claim under Former Statement.	Increase of claim in Revised Statement.
A	$8,147,362	$8,073,810	$73,552
B	3,107,142	2,867,619	239,523
C	6,436,922	5,794,687	642,235
D	887,831	730,959	156,872
E, F	504,481	296,835	207,646
	19,083,738	17,763,910	1,319,828

It is, however, to be observed that in order to ascertain the amount of the additional claims actually advanced in the “Revised Statement,” we must take into account the fact that in this statement the claims in respect of four vessels have been withdrawn, and those in respect of three others have been reduced. In these cases, namely, of four of the eight bonded whalers, (belonging to Glass A,) captured by the Shenandoah, the claims comprised in the “Former Statement,” amounting to $208,996, have been entirely withdrawn; in the case of the Altamaha, (belonging to Class A,) captured by the Alabama, the claim has been reduced by $15,450; in that of the Avon, (belonging to Class B,) captured by the Florida, the claim has been reduced by $67,000; and, finally, in the case of the Emma Jane, (belonging to Class D,) captured by the Alabama, the claim has been reduced by $9,000.

In order, then, to determine the amount of the additional claims comprised in the “Revised Statement,” we must evidently deduct the above sums from the claims made in the former statement, before comparing them with those in the Revised Statement, and in this manner it can be shown that the additional claims may be exhibited in reference to their amount and distribution in the following table:

In reference to classes.		In reference to cruisers.		In reference to interests.
A	$297,999	Alabama	$440,989	Vessels and insurances on do	$648,898
B	306,522	Florida	455,811	Freight and insurances on do	140,082
C	642,235	Tacony	63,892	Secured prospective earnings and insurances	181,103
D	165,872	Clarence	39,622	Cargo and insurances on do	473,830
E, F	207,646	Georgia	32,184	Personal effects	78,478
		Chickamauga	87,416	Damages	97,883
		Shenandoah	145,141
		Tallahassee	150,846
		Retribution	8,683
		Nashville	38,897
		Jeff. Davis	7,752
		Sumter	149,041
	1,620,274		1,620,274		1,620,274

We now proceed to consider the amounts of the additional claims as stated and arranged in the first column.

Class A.

There is one alteration in the “Revised Statement” of some importance which we have already referred to. In the claim in respect to the Altamaha, (which will be found commented on at page 19 of our first report as one manifestly extravagant,) in addition to the claim by the owner of $12,000 for the brig and her outfit, there was a claim in respect of the brig advanced by “an agent” amounting to $15,450. This latter claim has been withdrawn, so that the total claim in the “Revised Statement” is reduced by that amount, and the sum now claimed for the vessel and her outfit is $12,000, which is only $100 more than our allowance of $100 per ton would give.

In the “Former Statement” the claims in this class were:

In respect of 41 whalers, amounting to	$7,435,743
In respect of 6 fishing-vessels, amounting to	42,360
In respect of 8 whalers “bonded” or detained, amounting to	595,747
Therefore the total claim in the “Former Statement” amounted to		$8,073,810
But there have been withdrawn the claims for 4 out of the 8 “bonded” whalers, amounting together to	208,996
And the claim in respect of the Altamaha has been reduced by	15,450
Leaving therefore the amount of		$7,849,364
Which amount has to be compared with the corrected amount of the claims in Class A, contained in the “Revised Statement,” that is to say, with		$8,147,363
Therefore the total amount of the aditional claims in Class A, contained in the Revised Statement, amounts to		$297,999
These additional claims consist of—
New Claims, that is claims in respect of vessels not mentioned in the Former Statement, amounting to		$30,205
And
Further Claims, that is, claims in respect of vessels which are mentioned in the Former Statement, viz:
(a) For vessels and outfits	8,263
(b) For secured earnings	30,789
(c) For prospective earnings	150,314
(d) For damages	55,200
(e) For personal effects	23,228
		267,794
Giving as before a total of		297,999

I. As regards the Further Claims. In our First Report on Class A we fully provided for all losses sustained in respect of the vessels and outfits, their secured and prospective earnings (a, b, c.) We therefore see no reason why any allowance should be made on account of these Further Claims, but it may be worth while to observe that so far as they relate to the vessels, they can almost all be proved to arise from insurance companies and the owners simultaneously putting forward claims for the same sums; that the additional claims for prospective earnings are advanced by three vessels, the La Fayette, Catherine, General Williams, for the prospective earnings of which enormous sums were already claimed in the Former Statement,” and which will be found specially referred to at pages 317 and 318 of this Report, as illustrating the remarkable extent to which the owners have increased their claims since the year 1866.

The item of $55,200 for damages comprises claims for loss of time, wages, and occupation. These must, for reasons stated in our First Report, be disallowed, but it may nevertheless be useful to cite some instances in order to show the nature and extent of the claims advanced under this head.

The Master of the Edward Carey claims $10,000 as damages for loss of time and occupation; the Mate of the Pearl and a Cooper on board the same vessel claim respectively $5,000 and $1,200 for loss of time; the Mate of the Levi Starbuck claims $9,000 for loss of time.

As regards the claim of $23,228 for loss of personal effects, by far the greater part, namely, $18,346 is advanced in respect of losses occasioned by the captures made by the Shenandoah. It will be found in our First Report on Class A that we considered the claims for loss of personal effects occasioned by the captures made by the Shenandoah to be very extravagant, and that we consequently made a ratable allowance for these claims, while we passed those in respect of vessels captured by the other cruisers. We see no reason for allowing anything more for personal effects alleged to be lost by reason of captures by the Shenandoah; but to show the exorbitant nature of the additional claims of $18,346 we will mention that the Master of the Catherine claims $3,625; the First Mate of the Isaac Howland claims $3,227; and the Master of the Pearl claims $5,350.

With respect to the further claims for personal effects in the cases of the other whalers we propose to pass them, with the exception of those by the Master and Mate of the Nye, (a vessel of 211 tons,) amounting together to $2,023. We think that $750 will be an ample allowance for these two claims. These considerations will give $3,609 as the total allowance in respect of the Further Claims for personal effects.

II. As regards the New Claims, that is, claims in respect of vessels not mentioned in the “Revised Statement.” These consist of four fishing-vessels, alleged to have been destroyed by the Tallahassee, viz: the Etta Caroline of 39 tons, (p. 280 of the “Revised Statement,”) the Floral Wreath of 54 tons, (p. 281,) the Magnolia of 36 tons, (p. 285,) and the Pearl of 43 tons (p. 286,) and two fishing-vessels, the Ripple of 64 tons, (p. 210,) and the Archer of 62 tons, (p. 207,) the former of which is stated to have been destroyed by the Tacony, and the latter of which is alleged to have been detained by the same cruiser and to have lost her outfit.

In respect of the first four fishing-vessels destroyed by the Tallahassee the claims for the value of the vessels amounts to $16,200, and the claim for secured earnings to $900. We propose to allow this last claim of $900 and the claim of $2,700, the alleged value of the Magnolia and Pearl,¹ and, estimating the value of the Etta Caroline and Floral Wreath at the rate of $50 per ton, in accordance with our First Report on Class A, to allow for their values $4,650, so that our proposed allowances in respect of the four fishing-vessels destroyed by the Tallahassee amount altogether to $8,250, whereas the claim amounts to $17,100.

As regards the Ripple and the Archer, the two fishing-vessels captured by the Tacony, the claim in the “Revised Statement” in respect of the former for vessel and catchings on board is $8,805, that in respect of the Archer for outfits lost is $2,500, and. for loss of time $1,800, so that the total claim in respect of these two fishing-vessels is $13,105.

In accordance with our First Report on Class A we propose to allow for the value of the Ripple and her outfit at the rate of $50 per ton (giving $3,200,) and for the outfit of the Archer at the rate of $20 per ton (giving $1,240,) and for the catchings of the Ripple, and the detention of the Archer, we propose to allow the sum of $900 each.

We thus find that the total amount to be allowed for the Ripple and the Archer will be $6,240.

The result, therefore, is that for the New Claims, amounting to $ 30,205, we propose to allow $14,490.

Adding to the amount the sum of $3,609, the above-mentioned allowance for the Further Claims, we find that our allowance for all the additional claims in Class A, comprised in the “Revised Statements,” is $ 18,1099.

The above results may be exhibited in the following form:

New Claims	Claims.		Propo’d Allow’s.
Further Claims—		$30,205	$14,490
(a) Vessels and outfits	$8,263
(b) Secured earnings	30,789
(c) Prospective earnings	150,314
(d) Damages	55,200
(e) Personal effects	32,228		3,609
		267,794
		297,999	18,099

Class B.

We will now proceed to report on such claims comprised in the “Revised Statement” as are to be referred to Class B, that is to say, the class of vessels loaded with given specific cargoes; and we begin by noticing an exceptional case in which a somewhat important reduction is made in the claim. It will be found at page 22 of our First Report that we selected the Avon as a case illustrating the extravagant nature of some of the demands under this Class B. She was a vessel of 900 tons, and the total claim in respect of ship and freight in the “Former Statement” amount to $130,000. We allowed for the vessel $36,000, and for the freight $ 25,000; so that the total allowance was $61,000. In the “Revised Statement,” the claim has been reduced from the aforementioned sun of $130,000 to $63,000, begin only $2,000 more than our allowance.

In the “Former Statement” the claims in this class amounted to	$2,867,619
But the claim in respect of the Avon has been reduced by	67,000
Leaving, therefore, the amount of		$2,800,619
to be compared with the corrected amount of claims in Class B, contained in the Revised Statement, amounting to		3,107,141
Therefore, the total amount of the additional claims in the Revised Statement is		306,522

And it consists of:

(a) Additional claims for value of vessels, (including insurances)	$161,642	}	$306,522
(b) Additional claims for value of freights, (including insurances)	$39,233
(c) Additional claims for value of cargoes, (including insurances)	87,706
(d) Additional claims for damages	7,183
(e) Additional claims for personal effects	10,758

As regards the item (a,) the additional claims for the vessels, it consists of $40,000 claimed by owners or insurance companies over and above their claims in the “Former Statement;” of $17,442 for vessels not mentioned in the “Former Statement;” of $104,200 for vessels the value of which was not claimed for in the “Former Statement,” although claims in respect of their cargoes, or other matters connected with them, were advanced.

The first-mentioned part of the claim, amounting to $40,000, must, of course, be rejected, as the estimate of $40 per ton which we made in our First Report will, in our opinion, afford an adequate allowance for the values of the vessels.

The second-mentioned part of the claim, amounting to $17,442, is for the Otter Rock, (page 123,) the Arcade, (page 266,) and the E. F. Lewis (page 279.) Although in none of these cases any tonnage is given or other means afforded to arrive at a judgment of the values, nevertheless, inasmuch as it would not be prudent or proper, for purposes of our Present Report, to reject these claims altogether, we have estimated the value of the vessels by making a deduction proportionate to what we found in our First Report on Class B, to represent the overvaluation of all the vessels. The deduction so arrived at amounts to $6,842, leaving as the allowance to be made, $10,800.

As regards the last-mentioned portion of the claim for $104,200, it will be found, in the note at page 20 of our First Report, that in Class B there were five vessels the values of which were not claimed. In the “Revised Statement,” claims are now advanced for three of these vessels, viz, the M. L. Potter, of 400 tons, (page 122,) the Windward, of 160 tons, (page 204,) and the Lamont Dupont, of 195 tons, (page 285.) Accordingly, for the values of these vessels of an aggregate tonnage of 755 tons, we now make an allowance at our ordinary rate of $40 per ton, amounting to $30,200, and, adding this to the afore mentioned, sum of $10,800, we find that there should be allowed, in respect of the claim of $161,64 for the value of the, vessels, (a,) the sum of $41,000.

As regards the item (b,) viz: the additional claim of $39,233 for freights and insurances thereon, it is divisible into $8,477 claimed by owners or insurance companies for freights over and above their claims in the “Former Statement;” of $1,256 for freights in respect of vessels, not comprised in the “Former Statement;” of $29,500 claimed for freights of vessels (for the first time) in the “Revised Statement,” although other claims connected with those ships were advanced in the Former Statement.

The first-mentioned part of this claim, $8,477, must be rejected, since we have already made allowance in our former report tor losses in respect of freight.

The secondly-mentioned part of the claim, $1,256, we propose to pass, as it does not appear to us to be very excessive.

The last-mentioned part of the claim, $29,500, is made up of $6,000 in respect of the M. L. Potter, $5,000 in respect of the I. Littlefield, and $18,500 in respect of the Gildersleeve, for which, in the Former Statement, no claims were advanced; and, consequently, no allowance has yet been made. We have shown in our First Report that the claims to gross freight cannot be admitted, and we propose, instead thereof, to make, in accordance with the principles stated in our First Report, the ample allowance of $6,000.

As regards item (c,) viz: the additional cliam of $87,706 for cargo and insurances thereon, the amount of the insurances being $72,197. The same difficulties which we explained in our First Report of course present themselves here also in respect of the cargoes; and, although (as we shall show when discussing the additional claims under Class C) there are many reasons for inferring from the additional claims made in the Revised statement that our deduction of 12 per cent, will probably prove to be very inadequate, we think it better for the purpose of this provisional estimate to abide by the rule we have hitherto adopted.

As regards item (d,) viz: the claim of $7,183 for damages, it is presented in respect of one ship, (the Emily Fisher, page 222,) the tonnage of which is not given, and it is described as a claim for partial destruction of the vessel, for loss of freight, for loss paid owners of cargo, and for loss (paid expenses, &c.) on vessel. The ship is described in the “Revised statement” as having been captured by the “Retribution,” and run ashore on the Acklin Islands, where she was partially destroyed; whereas in the “Former Statement” no mention whatever was made of her having been run ashore, nor was any reference made to any claim advanced for damage to the ship, although a particular description was given of the injury sustained by the cargo. Considering the peculiar form in which the claim is presented, and that if the ship had in fact sustained injury for which the owners had not already received compensation, those owners, who are stated to reside in New York, would in all probability have advanced claims at an earlier moment than the 15th April last, we are of opinion that this claim should be entirely rejected: and it appears to us that the propriety of this view is much confirmed by the fact that a considerable portion of the additional claim is alleged to be for loss paid to owners of cargo, and that the latter claim for loss or cargo $9,352.26, while the insurers on cargo claim exactly the same amount.

Finally, as regards item (e,) viz: the claim of $10,758 for personal effects, we propose, as in our First Report, to go through the different cases, and to state when we think that any deduction should be made; merely premising that, in estimating the deduction, we have taken into account the tonnage and character of the vessel, the form in which each claim is presented, as well as other circumstances which, in certain cases, appear to us material, but which it is not necessary to point out specifically.

Lafayette.—Here the claim by the mate for $766, which is more than that advanced by the Captain, appears to us excessive. We propose that it should be reduced by	$366
M. L. Potter.—We propose no reduction.
Avon.—In this case the Master, in addition to his former claim, which (as will be seen on reference to our First Report, page 24) appeared to us exorbitant, has advanced a claim of $200. We propose that this should be rejected. This will require a deduction of	200
Southern Cross.—We propose no deduction.
Susan.—Here the Mate claims for loss of personal effects and wages, $452. For reasons fully stated in our First Report the claim for wages must be disallowed and we purpose to allow in respect of the loss of effects. $200, making a deduction of	225
Atlantic.—In this case the Master claims for loss of freight, stores, personal effects, $795; the Mate claims $165; and three seamen claim, respectively, $145, for personal effects. We propose to allow in respect of the Master’s claim, $300. We propose no deduction in the case of the claim made by the Mate. The claims by the seamen appear to us to require a deduction of $225. The effect of making these several allowances will be to allow in all, $675, and to make a deduction altogether of	720
Spokane.—We do not propose that any deduction should be made
Oneida.—Here we find a claim of $4,941 for loss of personal effects by Henry W. Johnson, who is merely described as of Stamford, Connecticut. We think that so vague and large a claim for personal effects put forward at the last moment is not likely to be a bona-fide claim, and that it should therefore be disallowed, making a deduction of	4,941

Windward.—In this case the Master claims for loss of personal effects, $500. This appears to us extravagant, and we propose that a deduction should he made of $150

These deductions will be found to reduce the claim of $10,758, for personal effects, to $3,432.

The result, therefore, at which we have arrived in respect of the claims comprised in Class B may be exhibited in the following form:

	Claims.	Proposed allowances.
(a) For vessels	$16,642	$41,000
(b) For freights	39,233	7,256
(c) For cargoes	87,706	76,182
(d) For damages	7,183
(e) For personal effects	10,758	3,432
	306,522	127,870

Class C.

In the “Former Statement” the claims comprised in this class amount to		$5,794,687
In the “Revised Statement” the claims comprised in this class amount to	$6,443,370
But the errors pointed out at page 318 of this Report in respect of the Commonwealth, Sea Lark, Union Jack, Crown Point, and Colcord, vessels belonging to this class, require altogether a deduction of	6,446
So that the corrected amount of claim m the “Revised, Statement” is		6,436,922
Therefore the total amount of the additional claims in the “Revised Statement” is		642,235

And it consists of:

a.	{	Additional claims tor vessels, amounting to	$104,651	}	$172,652
		Additional claims for insurances on vessels, amounting to	68,001
b.	{	Additional claims for freights, amounting to	14,493	}	79,693
		Additional claims for insurances on freights, amounting to	65,200
c.	{	Additional claims for cargoes, amounting to	226,478	}	336,699
		Additional claims for insurances on cargoes, amounting to	110,221
d.		Additional claims for damages, amounting to			22,000
e.		Additional claims for personal effects, amounting to			31,191
					642,235

As regards item (a,) for vessels and insurances on vessels, it consists, with the exception of $21,800, of Further Claims for vessels already claimed for in the “Former Statement,” and may be almost entirely traced to owners advancing claims simultaneously with insurance companies. An adequate allowance for the value of these vessels has, in our opinion, been made in our First Report, and we therefore cannot propose any further allowance in respect of the additional claim, ($72,652,) except as regards the sum of $21,800 just referred to, which represents a claim for the Robert Gilfillan, of 240 tons, (p. 221,) a vessel not comprised in the “Former Statement;” estimating her value at our rate of $40 per ton, we allow for her, $9,600.

It follows, therefore, that for the claim (a) of $172,652 for the vessels we propose an allowance of $9,600.

As regards item (b,) for freights and insurances on freights, it consists, with the exception of an amount of $61,500, entirely of Further Claims for freights already claimed for in the “Former Statement,” and it must, for the same reason for which we have just disallowed similar claims in respect of the vessels, be rejected.

As to the amount of $61,500, the residue of this item, it is claimed by the Atlantic Insurance Company in respect of the Contest, (page 30.) It is to be observed that in the Revised Statement the ship-owners repeat the admission made in the “Former Statement,” that they have received $38,500 for insurances on ship and cargo, and for this amount the insurance company might be expected to claim; but in addition, they, for the first time, advance a claim in the “Revised Statement” for $61,500 in respect of freight by claiming for insurance on ship, cargo, and freight in the lump, a round sum of $100,000. The ship was bound on a voyage from Japan to New York, and was 1,100 tons register, so that the claim for freight is at the rate of $56 per ton; but it must be rejected, because it is an unjustifiable claim for gross freight; and according to the principles fully stated in our First Report, we substitute, in proportion to the tonnage of the vessel, an allowance which we have estimated at $4,000.

It follows, therefore, that for the claim (b) of $79,093 for freight, we propose an allowance of $4,000.

We now pass to item (c,) for cargoes and insurance on cargoes; but before analyzing this large additional claim, it appears to us important to premise the following general observations.

As regards the form in which these additional claims are presented, there are two facts disclosed in the list of documents appended to the statements of the claims which distinguish, in a very notable manner, these additional claims from those comprised in the “Former Statement.” The one is, that the majority of the new claims are presented, not by the claimants themselves, but by one or two firms who seem to have made it their business to collect claims. The other is, that in a very great number, and, we believe, in the majority of cases, there are no bills of lading filed at Washington which would evidence the shipment of the goods or the property in them.

From the volume already referred to in this Report, containing “The correspondence relating to claims against Great Britain,” it appears that a list of claims was prepared as early as the year 1866, and that in 1869 there was presented to the Congress of the United States a new list, which, according to the statement of Mr. Hamilton Fish, (to be found at page 444 of the same volume,) the Government of the United States “used every effort to make as complete as possible.” Under these circumstances, and also when we find again a third list of claims presented to the Tribunal at Geneva, it seems scarcely credible that persons having sustained bona fide losses, unless they had already received compensation, would have omitted to present them in any of the three lists, and would have deferred doing so until the 15th of April last. We therefore expect that, if ever these additional claims come to be separately investigated and properly sifted, it will be found that many of them are fictitious; that in numerous cases, and especially in those of goods consigned to or from British ports, the owners were insured in England, and have received compensation from British underwriters; and that in other cases, particularly in those where no bills of lading have been filed, consignors are now claiming for goods, the property in which has passed to consignees, who either are claiming at the same time, or have been paid by English underwriters.

We have not, however, felt ourselves justified in acting upon this expectation, but have, with the exception of a few cases which we shall particularly notice, adopted the course pointed out on page 7 of our First Report. We accordingly propose to deduct, as before, 12 per cent. from 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 FirstReport, especially as the additional 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 through 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. Grown 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 or 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 (e,) 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:

	Claim.	Disallowed.	Allowed.
a. Vessels	$172,652	$163,052	$9,600
b. Freights	79,693	75,693	4,000
c. Cargoes	336,699	76,165	260,534
d. Damages	22,000	22,000
e. Personal effects	31,191	31,191
	642,235	368,101	274,134

Class D.

In the “Former Statement” the claims comprised in this class amount to	$730,959
But of this amount there has been withdrawn, in the case of the Emma Jane, (page 37,) the sum of	9,000
Leaving a sum of	721,959
To be compared with the sum claimed m the “Revised Statement”	887,831
So that the total amount of the additional claims in the “Revised Statement” is	165,872

And it consists of claims for—

(a.)	For vessels	$111,959	}	$116,959
	For insurances on ditto	5,000
(b.)	For freights
	For insurances on ditto
(c.)	For cargoes	5,000	}	26,155
	For insurances on ditto	21,115		13,500
(d.)	For damages			9,258
(e.)	For personal effects
				165,872

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 the “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 remarks which 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 tor 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 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 Harney 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:

	Amount claimed.	Disallowed.	Allowed.
(a.) Vessels	$116,959	$40,759	$76,200
(b.) Cargoes	26,155	7,532	18,623
(c.) Damages	13,500	13,500
(d.) Personal effects	9,258	8,178	1,080
	165,872	69,969	95,903

Class E, F.

In the “Former Statement” the claims comprised in this class are.		$296,835
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 Star, (two vessels belonging to this class,) there must be added the sum of	2,530
		504,481
So that the total amount of the additional claims in the “Revised Statement” is		207,646

This consists of claims—

(a.)	For vessels	$150,189	$159,177
	For insurances on vessels	8,988
(b.)	For freights	21,156	21,156
	For insurances on freights
(c.)	For cargoes	5,000	23,270
	For insurances on cargoes	18,270
(d.)	For damages
(e.)	For personal effects	4,043	4,043
			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”	$21,088
Further Claims, i. e., fresh claims for vessels comprised in “Former Statement	138,089

The New 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 loth 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 property would, by abandonment, pass to them, and as they have not given credit for its proceeds, nor supplied any particulars to show that it was substantially depreciated by any injury directly sustained by reason of the capture, we are of opinion that this claim ought not to be allowed.

The Further Claims for vessels are as follows:

1. The Corriss Ann, (p. 147,) of 568 tons.—On referring to our First Report (p. 30) it will be found that there was only a claim of $1,000 for freight and no claim for the vessel. In the “Revised Statement” there is a claim of $20,000 for the vessel, and as we do not consider it excessive, considering her tonnage, we propose to allow it.

The General Berry, p. 172.—This vessel, the tonnage of which is not given, is described as having been in the United States Service when destroyed. It appears from the synopsis of the list of papers appended to the Statement that a claim of $16,000 was presented to the United States Senate for the loss of this vessel. If this amount had been paid, the present claim is, in fact, one presented on behalf of the United States Government in respect of a vessel in its service; but, whether this be or be not so, it seems to us at any rate certain that under the circumstances more than $16,000 cannot be fairly demanded, and we, therefore, propose only to allow that sum.

3. The George Latimer, (p. 173,) of 200 tons.—Here there is a claim of $10,434. In the “Former Statement” there was a claim only of $1,600 for the vessel, which we allowed, as her tonnage was not given. (See page 30 of First Report.) Being now informed of her tonnage, and valuing her at our average rate, we think there should be an additional allowance of $7,000.

4. The Byzantium, (p. 208,) of 1,050 tons.—It will be found at page 30 of our First Report, that, as no claim was made for the value of the ship in the “Former Statement,” we inferred that she had been probably inspired and paid for by English underwriters, but as a claim is now advanced for ship and freight of $50,787, of which we ascribe $45,000 to ship and $5,787 to freight, we propose to allow for the vessel, at the rate of $40 per ton, (though with very considerable doubt,) the sum of $42,000.

5. The Daniel Trowbridge, (p. 267,) of 185 tons.—In the “Former Statement” there was no account given of her tonnage, nor of what had been done with her. In the “Revised Statement” she is said to have been destroyed on the 22d October, 1861, and there is a claim of $8,500 for vessel, and of $7,394 for cargo and outfit, of which latter sum we put $5,000 down to cargo, and $2,394 to outfit. As it seems almost inexplicable that a loss which occurred at so early a period should not have been claimed for until the 15th March last, unless the owners had received compensation, and as there is no claim by American insurance companies, it is only with very considerable hesitation that we propose to allow for the value of ship and outfit, in proportion to her tonnage, the sum of $7,500.

6. The Eben Dodge, p. 268.—In our First Report (p. 30) we allowed the only claim contained in the “Former Statement,” viz, the sum of $2,250, which was claimed by an insurance company. In the “Revised Statement” there is now a very heavy claim for vessel, outfit, and general earnings, showing her to have been a whaler. It appears, from the account given of her by Captain Semmes, that she was probably a vessel of about 250 tons, and that, when she was captured, she was leaking badly, and had no cargo on board. As we have already allowed $2,500, we have no doubt that we shall be giving ample compensation by making an additional allowance of $20,000.

The result of this analysis is, that for the additional claim (a) of $150,177 for vessels and insurances thereon, we propose that there should be made an allowance of $112,500.

As regards item (b) for freights, this consists of three claims:

1. The Harriet Stevens, p. 179.—It will be found, at page 30 of our First Report, that we have made an allowance in lieu of freight, and we do not think that the additional claim calls for any additional allowance.

2. The Byzantium, p. 208.—Here there is a claim for ship and freight of which, as already mentioned, we put down $5,787 to freight. Instead of this claim we propose to make, according to the principle stated in our First Report, an allowance of $4,000.

3. The Eben Dodge, p. 268.—Here there is a very large claim for prospective earnings. As she had only been twelve days on her voyage, we think that $1,000 will be an adequate allowance, in accordance with the principle stated in our First Report, which led us to reject the claims for prospective earnings.

We prefer, therefore, that for this claim (b) there be made an allowance of $5,000.

As regards item (c) for cargoes, this is made up of the following claims:

1. The Ariel, p. 23.—Here there is a claim of $78, which, though small, must, in our opinion, be rejected in accordance with the observations which we made at page 29 of our First Report.

2. The Corriss Ann, p. 157.—Here there is a claim of $4,400, which we propose to allow, because it is an insurance claim, although the fact of its being presented at so late a period makes it open to considerable suspicion.

3. The Joseph Parks, p. 269.—Here there is an insurance claim of $3,000, which we propose to allow for the same reason, but also with the same observation as before.

4. The Neapolitan, p. 270.—Here there is again an insurance claim for $8,986. This we also propose to allow.

5. The Joseph Maxwell, p. 269.—Here there is a claim of $2,006 for cargo, which, in our opinion, ought to be rejected for exactly the same reasons as have been already stated for the disallowance of the claim for the vessel.

6. The Daniel Trowbridge, p. 267.—We have already mentioned that we ascribe $5,000, part of the claim advanced in respect of this vessel, to cargo, and we propose to allow it, although not without much doubt, especially on account of there being a combined claim for cargo and outfit, of which it is impossible to know how much, if any, should be ascribed to cargo.

These allowances, in respect of the additional claims for cargo, amount to $21,186, and, deducting as usual 12 per cent., we propose that there should be made an allowance of $18,654 in respect of the item (c) of $23,270 for cargo.

As regards item (e) for personal effects, it consists of the following claims:

1. The General Berry, p. 172.—Here the Master and Chief officer claim $1,267 for loss of personal effects. We think that $700 will be adequate compensation, viz, $500 for the former and $200 for the latter.

2. The Daniel Trowbridge, p. 267.—Here the Master claims $1,572, although in the “Former Statement” he claimed the extravagant sum of $7,645. In our First Report (p. 30) we made him an allowance of $1,000, and see no reason to increase it.

3. The A. G. Bird, p. 275.—Here there is a claim of $300 by the officers, for loss of personal effects, which we propose to allow.

4. The M. Y. Davis, p. 185.—For the same reasons which led us to reject the new claim for this vessel, we propose that this claim, which is likewise presented by Messrs. Lawson and Walker, should be disallowed.

We therefore think that for the claim (e) of $4,043, for loss of personal effects, there should be allowed $1,000.

The result at which we have arrived, in reference to this class, may therefore be exhibited in the following form:

	Am’t claimed.	Disallowed.	Allowed.
a. Vessels	$159,177	$46,677	$112,500
b. Freights	21,156	18,956	5,000
c. Cargoes	23,270	4,616	18,654
d. Damages
e. Personal effects	4,043	3,043	1,000
	207,646	73,292	137,154

CORRECTION AND COMBINATION OF ALLOWANCES.

The following table exhibits the results we have arrived at as above mentioned in respect of the Additional Claims, contained in the Revised Statement arranged (X) according to Claims, (Y) according to Interests, (Z) according to the Cruisers.

(X) Classes.			(Y) Interests.			(Z) Cruisers.
	Claims.	Allowances.		Claims.	Allowances.		Claims.	Allowances.
A	$297,999	$18,099	Vessels	$648,898	$234,755	Alabama	$440,989	$83,729
						Boston
						Chickamauga	87,416	46,146
B	306,522	126,800	Earnings	181,103		Florida	455,811	263,627
						Clarence	39,622	11,880
C	642,235	274,134	Freights	140,082	30,404	Tacony	63,892	49,240
						Georgia	33,184	2,660
D	165,872	95,877	Cargoes	473,830	374,958	Jeff. Davis	7,752
						Nashville	38,897	23,724
E, F	207,646	134,328	Damages	97,883		Retribution	8,683	1,320
			Personal effects	78,478	9,121	Sallie
						Shenandoah	145,141	200
						Sumter	149,041	98,765
						Tallahassee	150,846	67,947
	1,620,274	649,238		1,620,274	649,238		1,620,274	649,238

Before proceeding to combine the foregoing allowances with those made in our First Report, so as to arrive at the allowance in respect of all the claims contained in the “Revised Statement,” it will be necessary to draw attention to some alterations which should be made from the former allowances; partly on account of the withdrawal of some of the claims contained in the “Former Statement,” and partly on account of some corrections the propriety of which further investigation has led us to make. It was stated, at p. 5 of the Present Report, that the claims in respect to four bonded whalers, amounting to $208,996, have now been withdrawn, and that three other claims, for vessels and freights, have been reduced by (altogether) the sum of $91,450. The last three reductions, it is to be observed, do not give rise to any diminution of our former allowances, because these were based on our average estimate of the values of the ships, and not on the actual amounts contained in the statement; but, on the other hand, it is clear that the withdrawal of the claims for the four bonded whalers must cause a deduction of $36,000 from our allowance, this being the amount which we allowed in our First Report for those four vessels.

We will now point out the corrections which our First Report seems to us to require:¹

In the first place, the claims made in respect of the Texana, captured by the Boston, and in respect of the Betsy Ames, captured by the Sallie, must undoubtedly be rejected, for the reasons stated at p. 2 of the British Counter Case. These were respectively $400 and $5,540. In our “First Report” we made no allowance in respect of the claim by the Texana, for other reasons therein named, but for the Betsy Ames we allowed the amount of claim less 12 per cent., or, in all, $4,875.

The allowance made in our First Report for the values of the vessels belonging to Class B requires an addition of $7,000. On referring namely to the foot-note at p. 20 of that Report, it will be found that we supposed there were five vessels mentioned but not claimed for in the Former Statement, whereas there were in fact only four, the vessel which we had erroneously included among the five being the Palmetto, of 175 tons. We have, therefore, to add an allowance for the value of this vessel at our average rate, amounting to $7,000.

In the second place, a closer examination of the claims made for cargo in the Former Statement when compared with those in the Original List and in the Revised Statement has enabled us to discover the following cases of double claims for single losses, in addition to those commented on at page 27 of our First Report:

1. The Union Jack—George A Potter (p. 95 of the Former, and p. 111 of the “Revised Statement,” “Alabama,” Class C) advances a claim in respect of cargo of $34,526, whilst, at the same time the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company claim in respect of cargo $32,014, so that the latter sum must, of course, be deducted from the allowances we made in our first report.

2. The Charter Oak—(p. 182 of Former, and p. 231 of “Revised Statement,” Shenanadoah, Class C.)—Here the Manufacturers’ Insurance Company claim $3,500 as insurers on cargo, and the Columbian Insurance Company likewise claim the same amount as re-insurers for the former company. This is, therefore, a double claim, and $3,500 must also be deducted from the allowances made on our First Report.

These deductions from allowances made under our First Report in respect of cargo make together $35,514, which amount, however, must be diminished by the 12 per cent. already taken off. We have therefore to deduct $31,253 in respect of cargo.

In the third place, we have, after considerable doubt, arrived at the conclusion, that it would perhaps be better to include in our “allowances for freights” some part of the expenditure which was taken into account in our valuation of the vessels and their outfits.

It will be remembered, that in the introductory part of our First Report we fully explained that, in our opinion, the claim of gross freight could not be allowed, and that adequate compensation would be granted, in respect of the claims for the losses of the vessels, their outfits and freights, if to the original values of the vessels were added all the expenses incurred by the owners for the purpose of the voyages up to the time of the capture, together with interest. We had, therefore, to estimate the values of the vessels and their outfits, including the expenses incurred for provisioning them and making them fit and able to leave port, and to add thereto the expenses incurred from the commencement of the voyages up to the time of capture, together with interest.

It will be found, on reference to page 20 of our First Report, that we considered the price of $40 per ton to be a “liberal estimate of the average market price on which the value of vessels at the commencement of their voyages might be safely based,” and we therefore took that price of $40 per ton as representing the average value of ships and their outfits, together with the expenses necessary for rendering them fit and able to leave port. These expenses we estimated on the average at $3 per ton, leaving for what may be called the “naked value” of the ship and her outfit a sum of $37 per ton; a sum which we considered, and still consider to be, on the average, amply sufficient. The expenses to which we have just referred would, no doubt, depend in each particular case to a considerable extent on the length of the voyage, the employment of the ship, on her carrying general cargoes, or carrying a given specific cargo, on her being loaded or being in ballast, and on other similar circumstances; but we were and still are of opinion that such expenditure will on the whole be fully covered by the average allowance of $3 per ton on all the vessels. It should, moreover, be observed that we have also left ourselves a considerable margin, inasmuch as we have made no exception in the cases of those vessels for which freight is not claimed (probably because it has been received from English underwriters) and which therefore clearly are not entitled to this allowance.

As the estimate of $40 per ton of the vessels includes the allowance of $3 per ton for the expenses of making them fit and able to leave port, it follows from the principle stated at the commencement of these observations, that we had only to add for the vessels claiming freight an allowance in respect of the expenditure incurred from the commencement of the voyage until the capture, together with interest, and it is this amount which we put down in our First Report as the “allowance for freight.” Although this was for several reasons convenient, it has, no doubt, the effect of concealing the fact that the allowance actually made in respect of the claims for gross freight not only comprised the last-mentioned amount, but also the other allowance of $3 per ton, and we think that, as the form in which the claims are presented renders it almost necessary to award a separate allowance in lieu of freight, it may, on the whole, be better to make it include, not only what we termed in our First Report “the allowance for freight,” but also the $3 per ton for the expenses of making the vessels fit and able to leave port, and therefore to deduct this latter amount from our estimate of the values of the vessels, which, as we have already said, included these expenses.¹

This alteration is, however, a matter of comparatively small importance, since it of course only affects the distribution and not the amount of our former allowances, and is only made for the purpose of showing, somewhat more clearly, what we did actually allow in our First Report in lieu of the claims for freight.

We now proceed to combine the allowances in respect of the claims contained in the Former Statement with those in respect of the additional claims contained in the Revised Statement, in order to ascertain the compensation for all the losses mentioned in the latter Statement.

The allowances made in our First Report, as altered in amount and arrangement according to the foregoing considerations, are fully exhibited in Table No. 2, but are briefly summarized in the following form:

Allowance in respect of Classes.		In respect of Interests.		In respect of Cruisers.
A	$1,745,421	Vessels and outfits	$3,237,930	Alabama	$3,267,678
				Boston
B	1,628,294	Freights and earnings	812,032	Chickamauga	80,118
				Florida	2,635,568
C	4,128,854	Cargoes	3,709,520	Georgia	251,031
				Jeff. Davis
				Nashville	62,900
D	339,551	Damages	68,446	Retribution	17,701
				Sallie
E, F	132,437	Personal effects	146,629	Shenandoah	1,338,236
				Sumter	4,050
				Tallahassee	317,275
	7,974,557		7,974,557		7,974,557

To these allowances we have now to add the allowances we have ascertained in our Present Report for the additional claims contained in the Revised Statement; and the result, which is fully exhibited in Table No. 3, is briefly seen also from the following table, and gives the total allowances we propose for all the claims contained in the Revised Statement.

Total Allowances in reference to Classes.		In reference to Interests.		In reference to Cruisers.
A	$1,763,520	Vessels and outfits	$3,472,685	Alabama	$3,351,407
				Boston
				Chickamauga	126,264
B	1,755,094	Earnings and freights	842,436	Florida	}
				Clarence		2,960,315
				Tacony
C	4,402,988	Cargoes	4,084,478	Georgia	253,691
				Jeff. Davis
D	435,428	Damages	68,446	Nashville	86,624
				Retribution	19,021
E, F	266,765	Personal effects	155,750	Sallie
				Shenandoah	1,338,436
				Sumter	102,815
				Tallahassee	385,222
	8,623,795		8,623,795		8,623,795

SUMMARY.

We now proceed to give a summary of the results we have arrived at in respect of all the claims contained in the Revised Statement:

The aggregate amount claimed in that Statement is		$25,547,161
But this amount includes a claim for increased insurance premiums, amounting to	$5,808,036
And also a claim styled “Miscellaneous,” amounting to	479,033
For reasons stated at page 1 of this Report these last two claims must be rejected, and there are certain errors in the figures pointed out at pages 4 and 5 of this Report, which on the whole necessitates a deduction of	176,324
		6,463,423
Leaving as the amount of claim to which our allowances apply		19,083,738

The manner in which this amount is distributed over the various claims is exhibited in the following table:

In reference to Classes.		In reference to Interests.		In reference to Cruisers.
A	$8,147,363	Vessels and outfits	$6,900,108	Alabama		$6,954,159
B	3,107,141	Earnings and freights	6,247,404	Boston		400
C	6,436,922	Cargoes	4,973,131	Chickamauga		183,071
D	887,831	Damages	604,347	Florida	}
E, F	504,481	Personal effects	358,748	Clarence		4,185,627
				Tacony
				Georgia		416,160
				Jeff. Davis		7,752
				Nashville		108,434
				Retribution		29,018
				Sallie		5,540
				Shenandoah		6,303,039
				Sumter		159,736
				Tallahassee		730,802
	19,083,738		19,083,738			19,083,738

I.—As to the vessels and outfits.

For the reasons stated in our First Report we have, with scarcely, any exception, valued the whalers at $100, the fishing-vessels at $50, and the other vessels at $40 per ton at the commencement of their voyages, including therefore the expenses necessary for making them ready for sea. We have also shown that in the cases of the whalers captured by the Shenandoah it is, with the exception of two or three cases, clear, from the very admissions of the owners, that they are advancing claims for the same losses simultaneously with the insurance companies, and that, in a great majority of the other cases, a similar course has, to a very great extent, been adopted. These considerations, together with the circumstance of the owners having considerably overvalued their property? will sufficiently account for the reduction in the amount of our allowances as contrasted with the amount of the claims for vessels and outfits.

II—As to the freights and earnings.

It is easy to prove that the amounts at which they are stated are beyond a doubt, most extravagant, and that they in many cases involve double claims for single losses. We have also explained at length, in the introductory part of our first report, the various grounds on which independently of its exaggerated amount, this claim for gross freights and gross earnings is utterly incapable of being supported, and why it should in our opinion be rejected; and in lieu thereof, such an allowance be made as would, as far as is legitimate or possible, satisfy the principle of restitutio in integrum, by placing the claimants almost in the same position as if they had not embarked in the unsuccessful adventure; an allowance which is far more liberal than that which has been awarded by the courts of America in similar cases. This allowance we have estimated at $842,436, which, when added to our allowance for vessels and outfits and expenses incurred in making the ships fit and able to leave port, amounts to $4,315,121, and will in our opinion fairly cover all losses in respect of the vessels, their outfits, earnings, and claims for freights.

III.—As to the cargoes.

As regards the claims for “cargoes,” it will be seen from the introductory part of our First Report that the form in which these claims are presented has rendered it impossible to ascertain, except in comparatively few cases, to what extent they involve double claims for single losses, as well as profits and the freight payable at the port of discharge; and we there fully stated the reasons why we entertain no doubt that if, from the total amount claimed for cargoes, profits, commissions, and insurances thereon, 12 per cent. be deducted, the result so obtained will, in all probability, exceed the real value of the goods at the port of shipment, together with interest from the time of loading until capture. We also explained that, by awarding this compensation, and thereby placing the owners in the same position in which they would have been, if, instead of embarking their capital in the shipment of the goods, they had invested it at the ordinary rate of interest, we were adopting a mode of compensation, not only consistent with well-recognized principles of jurisprudence, but also more liberal than that which has ever been applied by the courts of the United States.

In some cases, distinctly specified in our Reports, we have been able to discover that the owners and the insurance companies are simultaneously advancing claims for the same losses. In these cases we have, of course, deducted one of such double claims, and these deductions, together with those in respect of one or two claims which we have specially noticed and given our reasons for rejecting, amounted to about $340,000. After taking off 12 per cent. from the residue of the total claim, we thus arrived at the sum of $4,084,478 as the allowance for the cargoes. But although we have provisionally estimated the loss at this amount, we think it right to repeat that in our opinion this estimate will be found to be excessive, not only for the reasons stated in our First Report, but also because the additional claim of $473,830, advanced for cargo in the “Revised Statement,” is open to very considerable suspicion on account of the peculiar circumstances, fully stated at pages 11 and 12 of this Report.

IV.—As to claims for damages and personal effects.

As regards the claims for damages, we have in almost all cases rejected them, because they are in effect claims in respect of indirect losses, or for damages of too remote and contingent a character to entitle the claimants to compensation.

As regards the claims for personal effects, we have generally specified the cases in which we consider them excessive, and have come to the conclusion that the sum of $155,750 will cover any loss for personal effects which can be proved to have been sustained.

V.—Result.

The ultimate result at which we have arrived is the following:

The total amount of the claims we have been considering, that is, all the claims contained in the “Revised Statement,” exclusive of those for increased war premiums and the claims styled “miscellaneous, (all of which are “indirect claims,”) and after correcting certain errors of calculation, and withdrawing those for the Sallie and Boston, is $19,077,798. We are of opinion that the sum of $8,623,795 will be amply sufficient to meet all the losses embraced in these claims.

The following arrangement shows the amount of the claims connected with each cruiser, after adjusting the several corrections, on which we have reported; and also the corresponding estimates we have made as fully adequate to meet all the losses actually sustained, which, however, are subject to the reservations mentioned in our First Report:

Claims on account of—		Amounts claimed.	Amounts allowed.
Alabama		$6,954,159	$3,351,407
Boston
Chickamauga	}	183,071	126,264
Florida
Clarence		4,185,627	2,960,315
Tacony
Georgia		416,160	253,691
Jeff. Davis		7,752
Nashville		108,434	86,624
Retribution		29,018	19,021
Sallie
Shenandoah		6,303,039	1,338,436
Sumter		159,736	102,815
Tallahassee		730,802	385,222
		19,077,798	8,623,795

The reservations to which we have above referred are the following:

I.—The question whether Great Britain is liable for any of the losses which are the subject-matter of these claims, and, if for any, for which of them, is a question with which we have not been concerned: and keeping clear of what was not within our province, we have studiously confined ourselves to the task of sifting and analyzing the claims, and of ascertaining what in our opinion ought, according to well-recognized principles of jurisprudence, to be considered adequate compensation for the losses occasioned by each of the Confederate cruisers.

II.—The data which the statement of claims applies are, in several material respects, so scanty and so imperfect that we do not pretend to have estimated the allowance for each particular claim with complete accuracy, but we believe we have shown that there are valid and strong grounds for concluding that, if ever these claims come to be thoroughly sifted and examined, our estimate will be found to be in all respects a very liberal estimate.

NOTES.

I. There is one consideration to which it may be proper for us to direct attention, viz, the value of the “currency” dollar as compared with that of the “gold” dollar. We have no doubt that the claims comprised in the statement are made in the “currency” dollar, and it appears from the claim in the case of the Morning Star (p. 48 of this Report) that the value of that dollar may be taken to bear to that of the gold dollar the ratio of 5,614 to 7,744. In reducing the total amount of our estimate of allowances into “gold” dollars it must be borne in mind that so far as it relates to the claims for ships, freights, and damages it has been made in “gold” dollars, and therefore that it is only necessary to reduce the estimate in respect of cargoes and personal effects into the same currency. The total amount of our estimate of all the losses alleged to have been sustained, when thus reduced into gold dollars, may be converted into pounds sterling according to the proper rate of exchange, (which in some instances to be found in the claims has been assumed to be $4.84,) and it will be found in all probability to be considerably less than £1,600,000.

II. We have appended to this report Table IV, which shows the values put by Captain Semmes on the prizes he captured, and inasmuch as the captor generally considerably over-estimates the value of his prizes, we think that this table may throw some light which may prove useful on the nature and extent of the claims advanced for losses alleged to have been sustained by the Alabama captures.

Arthur Cohen.

Sidney Young.

June 8, 1872.

Table No. 1.—Showing progressive increase in the amount of claims for losses incurred through the respective cruisers as stated at different periods.—(See report, pp. 316–318.)

	Original List, 1866.		United States Amended List, 1869.		Former Statement November, 1871.			Revised Statement, March, 1872.
	Alleged captures.	Alleged looses.	Alleged Captures.	Alleged looses.	Alleged Captures.		Alleged looses.	Alleged Captures.	Alleged looses.
Alabama	51	$3,708,716	57	$5,242,962	58		$6,547,610	58	$7,009,121
Boston			1	400	1		400	1	400
Chickamauga			3	114,147	3		95,655	4	183,071
Florida	13	1,979,288	23	3,031,840	38		3,698,609	30	3,952,359
Florida, Clarence			1	14,520				2	54,142
Florida, Tacony			1	8,400				10	169,199
Georgia	4	210,295	5	326,351	5		383,976	5	416,160
Jeff. Davis								2	7,752
Nashville			1	70,584	1		69,537	2	108,434
Retribution			2	20,982	2		20,334	2	29,018
Sallie			1	5,540	1		5,540	1	5,540
Shenandoah	26	3,236,805	29	4,400,100	40		6,488,320	36	6,426,383
Sumter			1	2,250	3		10,696	8	167,673
Tallahassee			8	276,545	}	17	579,956	22	730,802
Olustee			4	73,875
Increased war premiums							1,200,795		5,808,066
Miscellaneous									479,033
Total	94	9,135,104	138	13,768,506	169		19,021,428	183	25,547,161

Table No.2.—Showing the result of the corrections and re-appropriations of the claims and the corresponding allowances in summaries Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of “First Report,” in accordance with our remarks, (Present Report, pp. 335–338.)

Summary (No. 1.)—Classes (corrected and re-arranged as per Report.)

	Claims.			Allowances.
				Value at (as per corrected Report)—
Class A.
V (a)	$1,721,417
V. I	791,163
		$2,512,580			$1,029,200
E. S	616,560
E P	4,085,501
Irc	111,669
		4,813,730			559,059
P. E		93,943			56,144
		7,420,253			1,644,403
Eight whalers detained (f)	595,747
Less 4 ditto (withdrawn)	208,996
		386,751			g67,446
Six fishing-vessels	33,638			$24,850
E. S	2,322
E. P	5,800			8,122
P. E	600			600
		42,360			33,572
			$7,849,364			$1,745,421
Class B.
V (m)	1,072,682
I.V (b)	382,809
		1,455,491			k870,795
F (m)	413,907
I. F (c)	90,000
		503,907			k95,593
C	218,850
I. C	570,369
		789,219			645,167
P. E., &c		52,002			16,739
			2,800,619
Class C.						1,628,294
V	981,084
I. V	557,912
		1,538,996			938,395
F	266,806
I. F	178,431
		445,237			103,829
C	1,352,736
I. C (h)	2,285,940
		3,638,676		(g) (i) (l)	3,028,385
P. E., &c		166,238			58,245
			5,789,147
Class D.						4,128,854
V (d)	443,605
I. V (e)	112,000
		555,605			294,335
F	132,283
I. F	6,000
		138,283			33,395
C
P. E., &c		28,071			11,821
			721,959
Class E. F.						339,551
V	151,050
I. V	3,850
		154,900			80,355
F	14,940
I. F	2,000
		16,940			12,034
C	18,660
I. C (k)	46,806
		65,466			35,968
P. E		59,129			4,080
			296,435			132,437
			17,457,524			7,974,557

Table No. 2.—Showing the result of the corrections and re-appropriations, &c. Continued.

Summary (No. 2.)—Interests (corrected and re-arranged as per Report.)

Claims.				Allowances.
				Valued at—
Vessels and outfits:	$1,755,055				$1,054,050
Class A (a)	1,072,682				m870,795
B	981,084				938,395
C	443,605				294,335
D (d)	151,050				80,355
E. F		$4,403,376
Insurance on ditto:
Class A	791,163
B (b)	382,809
C	557,912
D (c)	112,000
E. F	3,850
		1,847,734
			$6,251,210			$3,237,930
Earnings:
Class A	4,091,301
	618,882
		4,710,183
		111,669
Insurance			4,821,852			567,181
Freights:
Class B	413,907				m95,593
C	266,806				103,829
D	132,283				33,395
E. F	14,940				12,034
		827,936
Insurance ditto:
Class B (c)	90,000
C	178,431
D	6,000
E. F	2,000
		276,431
			1,104,367			244,851
Cargoes:
Class B	218,850				645,167
C	1,352,736			(i) (l)	3,028,385
D
E, F	18,660				35,968
		1,590,246
Insurance on ditto:
Class B	570,369
C (h)	2,285,940
D
E. F (i)	46,806
		2,903,515				3,709,524
			4,493,361
Sundries, (damages and personal effects:)				Damage	g68,446
Class A (f)	481,294			Per. effect	146,629
B	52,002
C	166,238
D	28,071
E. F	59,129
			786,734			215,075
			17,457,524			7,974,557

Table No. 2. —Showing the result of the corrections and re-appropriations, &c—Continued.

Summary (No. 3.)—Cruisers (corrected and re-arranged as per Report.)

Claims.			Allowances.
			Allowed at—
Alabama:
Class A (a)	$1,864,171			$460,893
B	1,306,610			m618,538
C	2,847,337			l2,004,376
D (d) (e)	378,443			136,021
E. F	116,609			47,850
		$6,513,170			$3,267,678
Boston:
Class E. F (k)
Chickamauga:
Class B	95,655	95,655		80,118	80,118
Florida, (including Clarence and Tacony:)
Class A	184,648			108,564
B (b) (c)	855,796			644,709
C	2,435,723			1,776,375
D	70,379			44,570
E. F	79,756			61,350
		3,626,302			2,635,568
Georgia:
Class B	203,195			105,194
C	150,781			145,837
E. F	30,000
		383,976			251,031
Nashville:
Class D		69,537		62,900	62,900
Retribution:
Class B	18,705			16,461
C	1,630			1,240
		20,335			17,701
Sallie:
Class C (h)				(i)	(g)
Shenandoah:
Class A (f)	5,795,045			g1,171,464
B	101,318			29,630
C	145,935			l99,582
D	93,100			37,560
E. F	22,500
		6,157,898			1,338,236
Sumter:
Class E. F		10,695		4,050	4,050
Tallahassee:
Class A	5,500			4,500
B	219,340			133,644
C	207,741			101,444
D	110,500			58,500
E. F	36,875			19,187
		579,956			317,275
		17,475,524			7,974,557

(a) This has been reduced by withdrawal from claim of the Altamaha of the sum of	$15,450
(b) This has been reduced by withdrawal from claim of the Avon of the sum of	42,000
(c) This has been reduced by withdrawal from claim of the Avon of the sum of	25,000
(d) This has been reduced by withdrawal from claim of the Emma Jane of the sum of	4,000
(e) This has been reduced by withdrawal from claim of the Emma Jane of the sum of	5,000
(f) This has been reduced by withdrawal from claim of four of the vessels detained by the Shenandoah	208,996
(g) This has been reduced by withdrawal from allowance for the vessels detained by the Shenandoah		$36,000
(h) This has been reduced by withdrawal from claim Betsy Ames (see p. 336)	5,540
(i) This has been reduced by withdrawal from allowance for Betsy Ames		4,875
(k) This has been reduced by withdrawal from claim of Texana (see p. 324)	400
(l) This has been reduced by withdrawal from the several allowances as mentioned (at p. 335)		31,253
Showing in all deductions from—
Claims	306,386
Allowances		72,128
(m) This has, on the other hand, been increased by allowance for the Palmetto, (seep. 336)		7,000

Table No. 3.—Showing, under respective Divisions of Classes, Interests, and Cruisers, the Claims advanced under the “Revised Statement,” (after adjusting the several errors named at pp. 4 and 5 of this Report,) together with the Allowances which we deem adequate to meet them. The said Claims and Allowances being those collectively arranged under our First Report on the “Former Statement,” as adjusted under the respective Summaries of Table II, and under this Report on the “Addition to the Claims” of the “Former Statement” as advanced in the “Revised Statement.” (See Table 2, p. 343.)

F. R. means “First Report,” as amended under Table II. P. R. (Present Report) means the corrected amount of Claims, as per “Revised Statement,” additional to those of the “Former Statement,” (as per analysis of Classes, p. 338, P. R.)

		Classes.						Interests.								Cruisers.
		Claims.		Allowances.				Claims.		Allowances.				No. of Captures		Claims.		Allowances.
A	F. R.	$7,849,364		$1,745,421		Vessels	F. R.	$6,251,210		$3,237,930		Alabama	F. R.	58		$6,513,170		$3,267,678
	P. R.	297,999		18,099			P. R.	648,898		234,55			P. R.			440,989		83,729
			$8,147,363		$1,763,520				$6,900,108		$3,472,685						$6,954,159		$3,351,407
B	F. R.	2,800,619		1,628,294		Earnings	F. R.	4,821,852				Boston	F. R.	1
	P. R.	306,522		126,800			P. R.	181,103					P. R.	3
			3,107,141		1,755,094				5,002,955		567,181
C	F. R.	5,789,147		4,128,854		Freights	F. R.	1,104,367		244,851		Chickamauga	F. R.	3		95,655		80,118
	P. R.	642,235		274,134			P. R.	140,082		30,404			P. R.	1		87,416		46,146
			6,431,382		4,402,988				1,244,449		275,255						183,071		126,264
D	F. R.	721,959		339,551		Cargoes	F. R.	4,93,361		3,709,520		Florida	F. R.	38	}	3,626,302		2,635,568
	P. R.	165,872		95,877			P. R.	473,830		374,958			P. R.	1
			887,831		435,428				4,967,191		4,084,478	Clarence	F. R.	1		P. R.	P. R.	P. R.
													P. R.	1
E. F	F. R.	296,435		132,437		Damages	F. R.	506,464		68,446		Tacony	F. R.
	P. R.	207,646		134,328			P. R.	97,883					P. R.	2
			504,081		266,765				604,347		68,446						4,185,627		2,960,315
						Personal effects	F. R.	280,270		146,629		Georgia	F. R.	5		383,76		251,031
							P. R.	78,478		9,121			P. R.			32,184		2,660
									358,748		155,750						416,160		253,691
												Jeff. Davis	F. R.
													P. R.	2		7,752
																	7,752
												Nashville	F. R.	1		69,537		62,900
													P. R.	1		38,897		23,724
																	108,434		86,624
												Retribution	F. R.	2		20,335		17,701
													P. R.			8,683		1,320
																	29,018		19,021
												Sallie	F. R.	1
													P. R.
												Shenandoah	F. R.	6		6,157,898		1,338,236
													P. R.			145,141		200
																	6,303,039		1,338,436
												Sumter	F. R.	3		10,695		4,050
													P. R.	5		149,041		98,765
																	159,736		102,815
												Tallahassee	F. R.	12		579,956		317,275
													P. R.	5		150,846		67,947
																	730,802		385,222
		19,077,798		8,623,795				19,077,798		8,623,795							19,077,798		8,623,795

Table IV.—Showing the vessels captured by the Alabama, ranged under the respective Classes; the Valuation the Captors placed upon each Vessel: the Allowance we have found to be adequate to compensate the Sum of the Losses in each Class; and, further, the progressive Claims advanced for these Vessels by the United States Government, at the several Periods alluded to at p. 316 of this Report.

		Vessels.	Captor’s Valuations.		Allowances as per Reports.		Original List Claims, (1866.)		United States Senate, (1869.)		Former Statement, (1871.)		Revised Statement, (1872.)
Class A	{	Alert	$20,000				$57,859		$57,859		$202,726		$202,726
		Altamaha	3,000				15,450		31,940		48,001		32,756
		Benjn. Tucker	18,000				124,000		172,000		179,345		179,835
		Courser	7,000				12,462		12,462		12,462		33,308
		Elisha Dunbar	25,000				149,670		21,375		150,895		150,895
		Kate Cory	10,568				29,620		48,374		56,334		56,474
		Kingfisher	2,400						48,252		31,952		31,952
		Lafayette, (No. 2).	20,908				69,471		69,444		88,946		141,855
		Levi Starbuck	25,000				23,350		229,313		236,673		269,523
		Ocean Rover	70,000				104,000		136,940		168,946		193,666
		Ocmulgee	50,000						254,072		419,350		419,985
		Nye	31,127				2,350		23,350		104,936		106,959
		Virginia	25,000				153,950		167,500		167,500		167,500
		Weather-gauge	10,000				10,221		10,221		11,546		30,446
				$318,003		$464,111		$752,403		$1,283,102		$1,879,612		$2,017,880
Class B	{	Brilliant	164,000				106,707		106,707		123,238		125,213
		Chas. Hill	28,450				45,278.		45,278		45,276		45,276
		Conrad	100,936				87,957		70,573		94,241		94,241
		Crenshaw	33,869				639		631		27,474		27,474
		Express	121,320				12,000		68,114		76,109		82,109
		Golden Eagle	61,000				63,500		114,687		113,522		114,687
		Jabez Snow	72,781				6,600		140,008		140,008		146,208
		Jno. A. Parkes	66,157				33,201		126,204		126,517		126,800
		Lafayette	100,337				103,989		103,989		113,290		121,795
		Lamplighter	117,600				73,540		70,385		27,500		27,950
		Louisa Hatch	38,315				82,250		85,380		85,380		85,380
		Palmetto	18,430				500		500		22,833		22,833
		Rockingham	97,878				105,000		105,000		216,956		235,456
		S. Gildersleeve	62,783				17,500		35,000		35,000		35,000
		Wave Crest	44,000				1,095		59,067		59,264		59,264
				1,127,856		628,588		739,756		1,131,523		1,306,608		1,349,686
Class C	{	Amanda	104,442				73,229		73,229		69,853		69,853
		Amazonian	97,665				90,977		139,822		126,903		135,903
		Anna F. Schmidt	350,000				101,116		214,850		271,891		294,654
		Contest	122,815				141,841		132,872		42,865		142,866
		Dorcas Prince	44,108				33,526		58,315		59,815		59,815
		Dunkirk	25,000				2,122		30,322		39,882		51,285
		Golden Rule	112,000				42,156		69,143		82,036		88,181
		Lauretta	32,880				15,000		27,200		27,950		30,340
		Manchester	164,000				24,147		64,146		143,306		161,156
		Martaban	97,628						18,657		52,922		52,922
		Olive Jane	43,208				3,637		12,530		69,839		70,528
		Parker Cook	10,000				26,064		25,400		26,064		26,064
		Sea Bride	16,940				118,638		90,338		143,638		146,338
		Sea Lark	550,000				182,650		244,404		342,918		365,447
		Talisman	139,195				129,996		169,211		187,405		233,355
		T. B. Wales	245,625				196,036		202,841		221,894		228,982
		Tycoon	390,000				303,809		383,033		434,818		447,399
		Union Jack	77,000				67,921		112,548		161,514		172,234
		Winged Racer	150,000				386,842		321,940		341,824		365,768
				2,772,506		2,073,837		1,939,707		2,390,801		2,847,337		3,143,090
Class D	{	Chastelaine	10,000						11,671		11,671		11,671
		Emma Jane	40,000				25,000		79,000		95,557		86,558
		Highlander	75,965				36,000		146,402		191,171		191,171
		Sonora	46,545				119,045		89,544		89,044		94,514
				172,510		137,021		180,045		326,617		387,443		383,914
Class E, F.	{	Ariel	261,000				8,500		10,000		10,345		10,425
		Baron de Castine	5,000								1,500		1,500
		Justina	7,000						7,000		7,000		7,000
		Morning Star	61,750						*5,614		17,744		*5,614
		Nora	76,636				83,500		83,500		83,500		83,500
		Starlight	4,000				4,805		4,805		6,520		6,520
				415,386		47,850		96,805		110,919		116,609		114,559
			58 vessels.	4,806,261		3,351,407	51 vessels.	3,708,716	57 vessels.	5,242,962	58 vessels	6,537,609	58 vessels.	7,009,129

1. The same consideration affects the claims connected with the cruisers Boston and Sallie in the “Former Statement,” (see p. 63.)
1. In the “former statement,” although there were the same memoranda in the cases of the Levi Starbuck, Ocean Rover, and Sea Lark as there are in the “Revised Statement,” the errors above pointed out were not made.
1. This vessel Pearl is a different vessel from that referred to above; the claim in respect of the former, which is a small fishing-vessel, is at page 286, and the claim in respect of the latter, which is a bark, is at p. 259.

1. There are also the following errata in our First Report:

   P. 24.—Fourth paragraph from bottom, for “cargo of grain” read “cargo of guano.”

   P. 24.—Third line from bottom, for “Mr. Rufus Green” read “C. R. Green.”

   P. 25.—Sixth line from bottom, for “Mr. Rufus Green” read “C. R. Green.”

   P. 27.—(Sea Bride,) for “R. Green and Co.” read “Rufus Greene and Co.”

   P. 28.—Table showing amount of claims, &c.:

   Alabama, (amount claimed,) for “$6,537,711” read “$6,537,620.”

   Chickamauga, (amount allowed,) for “$80,108” read “$80,118.”

   Georgia, (amount allowed,) for “$257,031” read “$221,031.”

1. Strictly speaking, the allowance in lieu of freight includes also an amount equivalent to the wear and tear of the vessel up to the time of capture, inasmuch as we have allowed the original value of the vessel at the commencement of the voyage.
1. This is the claim alluded to at p. 318 as being made in the former statement in currency and in the revised statement in gold. In the latter form it will be seen it was first presented to the United States Senate in 1869.