Page images
PDF
EPUB

by the United States gunboat Pembina, as to which reference was had in the last place in my note of the 22d April this year, I have the honor to ask your permission to request you will be so good as to enable me to furnish the information desired.

Please accept the fresh assurance of my very high consideration.

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

ROEST VAN LIMBURG.

Secretary of State of the United States of America.

Mr. Seward to Mr. van Limburg.

DEPARTMENT of State,

Washington, August 22, 1865.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 7th instant, requesting to be informed of the progress attained in the adjustment of the case of the Geziena Hildegonda, and to inform you that I have addressed a communication upon the subject to the United States district attorney at New Orleans, with a view to furnish myself with such information as will enable me at an early day to comply with your request.

Accept, sir, a renewed assurance of my high consideration.

Mr. ROEST VAN LIMBURG, &c., &c., &c.

[ocr errors]

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. van Limburg to Mr. Seward.

[Translation.]

WASHINGTON, October 30, 1865.

SIR I have the honor of asking your permission to recur to my letter of the 7th of August last, relating to the affairs of the Geziena Hildegonda, concerning which, in your letter of the 22d of August, you did me the honor to say that you had demanded information from the district attorney in New Orleans.

The government of the King has written to me repeatedly on the subject. I would be very much obliged to you if you would enable me to give it the proper information of what has been done, and would use your great influence to have the affair ended in the way we all most desire.

I have the honor of repeating the assurance of my very high consideration. ROEST VAN LIMBURG.

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.

Mr. Seward to Mr. van Limburg.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, November 15, 1865.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 30th ultimo, relative to the case of the Netherlands ship the Geziena Hildegonda. In reply, I have the honor to inform you, with much regret, that as yet no communication upon the subject has been received from the United States attorney at New Orleans, to whom the matter was referred, as stated in my note to you of the 22d of August last. I have again called the attention of that officer to the matter, who has been requested to communicate to this department, without further delay, such information regarding the case in question as may be in his power.

Accept, sir, a renewed assurance of my high consideration.
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. ROEST VAN LIMBURG, &c., &c., &c.

CHINA.

No. 51.]

Mr. Burlingame to Mr. Seward.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Peking, October 5, 1863.

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

These parties complain of the award made in this case by the commissioners at Macao, in January, 1860, and desire that the commission may be re-opened at Washington, and that I will, in the interests of justice, remove the obstacle in the way of their success which they find in my despatch No. 25, of May 19, 1862. Wishing to do no injustice, and desirous, from my personal esteem for Mr. Grinnell, to aid him in every proper endeavor, I at once entered upon an examination of the history of the claim, as found in the legation archives and records of the commission; and that nothing might be left undone, I requested Dr. Williams, our secretary of legation, as he had been conversant with the claim from the beginning, to give me such information in relation to it as he might possess. The result of my investigation is that I am constrained to differ from Mr. Grinnell, and to conclude that he has been misinformed as to the facts in the case. The points of difference are very clearly set forth by Dr. Williams in his letter to me, marked C.

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

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

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

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

Second. That the claimants had not sufficient notice of the sittings of the commission, and consequently had no time to prepare and present their case. Third. That the proceedings were ex parte and were improperly conducted, in so far that evidence was withheld by Mr. Ward, which, had it been presented by him, would have led the commission to make a more favorable award.

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

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

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

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

With regard to the third complaint against Mr. Ward and the reference to the conduct of the case, I have also to say that the intimations that he withheld the instructions of bis government does that gentleman great injustice. He did not make his decision until after reading them, and Dr. Williams, who was cognizant of the circumstances, states that they were spoken of at the time to the

He

commissioners; and, moreover, the copy of the award quoting them is partly in the handwriting of Mr. Roberts. Dr. Williams bears his most earnest testimony to the carefulness and integrity of all Mr. Ward's proceedings in the case. did all he could for the claimants, as did every member of the legation; and in the Caldera's case there was more evidence adduced than in any other before the commission.

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

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

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

ANSON BURLINGAME.

[Enclosure A.]

Mr. Grinnell to Mr. Burlingame.

NEW YORK, June 15, 1863.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have, &c., &c.,

M. H. GRINNELL,

President Sun Insurance Company, and for Other Companies.

His Excellency ANSON BURLINGAME, &c., &c., &c.

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

[blocks in formation]

New York Mutual Insurance Company, represented by Messrs.

[blocks in formation]

Russell & Co.:

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

[Enclosure B.]

Mr. Grinnell to Mr. Burlingame.

NEW YORK, June 16, 1863.

MY DEAR SIR: Under my official signature, dated the 15th instant, I have already had the honor to address you with reference to the Caldera's claims, which were partially adjudicated and forty per cent. awarded; which award, however, was received under protest by Messrs. Russell & Co., advising the claimants had recourse to Washington for further redress.

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

« PreviousContinue »