in a prolonged season of two months in Bering Sea, for which the United States should pay. As it is, the results of that original plan, in the amounts of those laboriously honest vouchers for supplies and equipments, are not in the case, and even the first fruits of it, so carefully preserved and so faithfully sworn to by Munsie, the Carolena vouchers, are not brought forward, or their amounts longer included in the above "valuations.” The Commissioners have seen the claimants at Victoria and have observed their methods of preparing and presenting their evidence. As a class, they were certainly no better than those referred to in the citations heretofore quoted, as being unreliable assessors of their own values and damages. PERSONAL DAMAGES FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT As to these, a table is submitted* showing their growth in amount. The testimony in support of them is hereinafter analyzed under the proper heads. The Margotich story, which seems still to be given credence in the British argument, is a story of hardship, but it is not believed, after the investigation at Victoria, that the Commissioners will give it any credit. The "sufferings and losses, navigating four vessels ule of Brit- from Unalaska to Sitka," of Captain Warren, John at Paris. Reilly, Captain Ferey, A. B. Laing, Louis Olsen, P. 59, sched ish claims Michael Keefe, and Captain Petit, of the WarrenCooper fleet, might possibly be considered irrespective of the actual American ownership of the vessels on which they sailed, with the exception of Warren and Laing, who had full knowledge that the national character of the ships on which they sailed was not British, but American. In any case, the amounts charged for the hardships all appear by the table presented. * Infra, p. 335. What these sufferings and losses were did not appear at the hearing at Victoria, but it did appear at that hearing, for the first time, that Warren, Petit, and Keefe were occupied during their "detention” in Alaska at a very high rate of compensation, paid by the authorities of the United States Government, for their services under voluntary contract. It did appear that while Captain Petit and Keefe were off on a voyage in that behalf, all the others named, who were not suffering like themselves and Captain Warren, had departed for home. Among the prisoners of 1886, aside from Margotich, are Guttormsen, Monroe, Norman, Oglivie, and Black, all of the Onward, Thornton, and the Carolena. Setting Margotich aside, the tale of suffering of these men is related by the witness Dillon, who, as it turned out on cross-examination, actually remained about the jail, not as a prisoner, but as a deputy of the sheriff, and remained because he got better wages in that employment than in following the sea. There is no claim for wages in these personal claims, and not a word of testimony except that of Margotich and the witness just mentioned as to any actual damage suffered. The testimony of Captain Raynor disposes of the Oglivie claim, and it is not thought necessary to argue the question as to whether the item which Mr. Munsie charges for cash lost through him is a proper charge against the United States. The personal claims are of a character in any case which have never been allowed in a case of unlawful capture at sea. They are claims for punitory damages, which, as we have seen, can not furnish the rule of damages here. It appears through all prior Commissions, and notably under the Commission of 1871, that all personal claims of masters or members of crews of ships for imprisonment, hardships, or otherwise, were presented separately from the ships, by individuals, because a finding was required on "each" claim, as in this case. It follows, on this ground also, that no claims can be entertained that are not scheduled.. It was the act of a Government under color of right and claim of jurisdiction. Although the persons on the captured vessels were practically imprisoned in the Alabama cases, no such claims were even presented. The case of the Montijo, supra, was particularly outrageous as against the ship and those upon her. In that case similar claims were presented by the United States in behalf of the officers and crew, and this is what the British minister, acting as umpire, decided on such claims: But the undersigned, whilst deciding on the liability of the owners, does not see any necessity for indemnifying either Mr. John Schruber, the captain, the engineer, or the petty officers and crew of the Montijo. No personal injury seems to have been suffered by any of these persons, and the inconvenience they experienced appears to have been small. In the case of the officers and crew probably there was none at all. The wages of all of these latter have doubtless been paid by the owners. so that it really must have been a matter of indifference to them whether they were sailing under the orders of Captain Saunders or of Señor Herrera. As to Mr. John Schruber, the undersigned can scarcely consider as a case of false imprisonment his retention on board of his own vessel. That he was not a free man is true, and that he suffered some inconvenience and possibly some loss of business by the act of which he complains is probably the case. It is also possible that a court of law might consider him entitled to personal damages, but the undersigned believes that a Tribunal such as this is may lawfully exercise considerable discretion of its own, and decide rather on broad general principles than on a strict interpretation of written law. Such being his opinion, he concurs with the Arbitrator of the United States in striking out of the accounts presented by that Government the claims for personal damages of all the parties concerned. CLAIMS FOR LEGAL SERVICES. On the testimony at Victoria, it is hardly thought possible that these charges will be entertained, in so far as they relate to the preparation of claims to be presented against the Government, and nothing can be allowed for "legal and other expenses," on an estimate, or without proof of what they are. Whatever charges were paid out for the defense of the ships of British owners in the courts of Alaska, appearing in the British schedule of claims before the Paris Tribunal, should be allowed; but there must be a certainty of proof as to them, and they can not be recovered without proof, and on their mere statement of the claim, analogous to the ad damnum clause in a declaration at common lawunless the theory of the British argument be correct, that damages on a general allegation of legal expenses can be given because of matter of aggravation. In the case of the claim of Great Britain in behalf of her subjects in the ships destroyed by Prussia in the Seine, supra, the charge for legal services of lawyers employed to protect their interests was stricken out. The claim is never allowed in such cases of marine tort. (Baltimore, 8 Wall., 377.) Or in cases of wrongful capture at sea. Senora de Regla, 17 Wall., p. 31.) (Nuestra THE VALUE OF SEAL SKINS.* * The British Argument cites the witness Theo. Lubbe, the leading purchaser of seal skins in the Victoria market during 1886, 1887, and 1889 to this effect: That the market at Victoria was ruled by the London The number of seals seized on each vessel is accurately stated in the Argument for Great Britain. sales. This being so, even if it be admitted that the London prices have anything to do with the measure of value, the tendency of the testimony as to that foreign market, in connection with the actual sales at Victoria is to the conclusion that the Victoria prices, so ruled, are still the tests of values in this case. The evidence discloses, however, that there was always a market at Victoria, and that the following were large buyers at that place during the three years: 1886: Theodore Lubbe, representing Martin Bates, Jr., & Co., of New York; Alaska Commercial Company; Bessinger & Co.; The Hudson Bay Company; Liebes & Co., of San Francisco; I. & A. Boscowitz. 1887: Theodore Lubbe, representing Martin Bates, Jr., & Co., of New York; J. Uhlman & Co., of New York; Liebes & Co., of San Francisco; Morris Moss, purchasing agent at Victoria; J. Boscowitz; Hudson Bay Company. 1889: Theodore Lubbe, representing Martin Bates Jr. & Co., of New York; Walter Borns; Jos. Uhlman, of New York; H. Liebes & Co., of San Francisco; Morris Moss, purchasing agent at Victoria; The Hudson Bay Company; J. and A. Boscowitz. With this evidence of a market at Victoria and with the clear evidence of another and active market so near as San Francisco, it does not yet appear how the evidence of London sales could be competent. The claims originally set down in the schedule presented at Paris were in terms based on the Victoria market, with the exception of those of Mr. Munsie, who there sets out the London prices. As to the other claims, the foreign market is a new theory. It is not necessary to again state the measure of recovery for the conversion of personal property. The cases heretofore carefully analyzed, universally hold to a test, that would exclude the London market |