Page images
PDF
EPUB

Moritz Gutman, as the administrator of the estate of Jacob Gutman, deceased, made affidavit on the 9th day of November, 1888, as follows:

That the said firm of Gutman and Frank, having a claim against the Government of the United States of America for the amount of twenty thousand four hundred and thirtythree dollars, such claim being for the seizure of a sailing schooner known by the name of Alfred Adams, and owned by the said firm of Gutman and Frank, and of certain seal skins belonging to the said firm, and that proceedings have been Exhibits, p. commenced and are now being prosecuted for the recovery 214, line 19. of such damages.

In the affidavit of Moritz Gutman, of November 9, 1888, he asked the probate court for authority to sell the assets of Jacob Gutman, "excepting thereout the said claim of twenty thousand four hundred and thirty-three dollars against the United States authorities.'

Exhibit, 210, Alexander Frank swore in his affidavit, executed line 50. on the 30th day of April, 1888, that the firm of Gutman & Frank did at one time own the Alfred Adams. In this affidavit, dated April 30th, 1888, he made oath that he was a half owner of "one other schooner, also registered at the port of Victoria in the name of Jacob Gutman, and under the name of Lily, but formerly called the Alfred Adams."

It is admitted, on behalf of Great Britain, that Alexander Frank was equally interested in the operations of the Alfred Adams for the year 1887. He is, therefore, equally interested in the claim as filed before this High Commission, inasmuch as the claim is one entirely relating to the cargo or earnings of the ship, and not for the value of the hull.

Opposed to this, the Government of the United States claims that at the time of the seizure of the Alfred Adams, Alexander Frank was not only interested in the venture of the ship, but was an owner

of one-half.

Exhibit 80, claim No.

Accordingly, the Government of the United States denies any liability to Alexander Frank or his partner in business, for the reason that he was an American citizen at the time of the seizure and can not receive damages for his act committed in violation of the municipal laws of his own country.

The Alfred Adams was constructed in 1851 and had 8; Exhib- a carrying capacity of 68.75 registered tons. its, p. 197.

The claim is in the nature of a claim for partial loss and the measure of damages is the charter value, or demurrage of the Alfred Adams from the date of the seizure, August 6, to the termination of the sealing season in Bering Sea in the year 1887, that is, the 20th or 25th of August, in addition to the value of the seal skins and guns seized and condemned.

There is no testimony in the Record upon which to base the claim "legal expenses, $300," or the claim "personal expenses, $200," and no testimony is cited in the Argument on behalf of Great Britain.

THE GRACE AND THE DOLPHIN.

CLAIMS Nos. 9 AND 10.

line 55; P. 114,line55;

The Grace and Dolphin were schooners having auxili- App.B.p.116, ary steam power and a registered tonnage of 76.87 and 60.10, respectively.

The vessels being owned at the time of their seizure by Thomas H. Cooper, a civil citizen of the United States, any liability on the part of the United States to this claimant is denied.

Claims in
Br. Case,

Am. Rep.,

vol. 4, pp.

158, 168.

55.

13, 23.

In 1887 the schooners, after sealing on the coast, R., 1860, line entered Bering Sea in company, July 6. On July 12 the Dolphin, with 618 seal skins on board, was seized by the United States revenue steamer Bear; R., 1861, linos and on July 17 the Grace, with 769 seal skins on board, was also seized by the same revenue cutter. The two vessels were towed to Unalaska and from there sent to Sitka. The Dolphin arrived on July 31 and the Grace the day following. On September 11 R., 1145, line the Grace, her outfit and cargo, were libeled by the 94; R.,1127, United States attorney for the District of Alaska for App, B, p. violation of the statutes of the United States. On B, p. 163. September 13 the Dolphin, her outfit and cargo, were also libeled.

line 37.

172, App.

166, 174.

Appearances were entered for each vessel on behalf App. B, pp. of her owner. On October 11, 1887, decrees of condemnation, forfeiture, and sale were entered against the schooners, their outfits, and cargo.

Subsequently the vessels, portions of their outfits, and the seal skins seized were sold under the decrees by the United States marshal. By reason of their

Br. Arg., pp. 122, 123.

Ante, p. 314.

seizure the Grace and Dolphin became totally lost to their owner.

The items attached to the schedule of the damages claimed in the case of each vessel, which appear in the Argument on behalf of the claimant, those for Ante, p. 319. "value of vessel," "expenses and hardships of crew," and those for the personal claims of the captain and mate of each vessel have been already considered.

Claims in Br.
Case, Am.

The attention of the High Commissioners is called Rep., vol. to the fact that there was no mate of the schooner 4, p. 207. Grace, and no claim on behalf of one was made in the claims submitted at Paris.

R., 618, line 43; R., 1617.

R., 1143, line 49.

The witness Norman, who testified to having acted as mate of the vessel, was the engineer, and his testimony shows that he was not detained or imprisoned at Sitka.

The item in each schedule for "Legal expenses, $850," is composed of charges by Belyea and by counsel at Sitka. The former, The former, so far as the Record discloses, were for the preparation of the claims for presentation at Ottawa, and there is no evidence that the owner is even contingently liable for their payment. The legal expenses, which it is claimed were incurred at Sitka, are not shown to have been paid by the owner, or that he contracted to pay them.

The items included in the schedules for "flag," "bedding," "estimated value of articles which were doubtless on board the vessel, and which can not be specifically mentioned," "passage of master and crew, $200," have no evidence to support them.

"Time and personal expenses, $250," are not properly included in the schedules, being incurred, if at all, in the preparation of the claim for presentation at Ottawa, and being covered by the item charged in the Thornton claim.

A claim is made in the case of the Grace for “balance of catch for the remainder of the season" of

1887, $19,500, and a similar claim is made in the case of the Dolphin amounting to $22,100. These claims are for future profits which can not be recovered in any event since the vessels were totally lost to their owner. The law which governs in cases Ante, p. 101. of total loss has been already discussed.

The items in the schedule of the claim made for the Grace, "three iron tanks, twelve water casks, twelve guns, three rifles, cannon, gun tools, two boats, cook stove," are based upon the statements of James D. Warren, the managing agent of the owner R., 1139. The testimony of this witness shows that his evidence relates to the cost of these articles, and not to their value at the time of seizure. In connection with the different articles in regard to which he was questioned, he stated as follows:

That is just what they would cost.

*

Q. How much should you say they were worth?
A. That is about what they cost.

[blocks in formation]

There is nothing in the Record to determine whether or not the articles were new when seized, but since the vessel had sealed throughout the season of 1886, the presumption is that many, if not all, had been used for over a year and were not worth their cost price at the time the vessel was seized.

R., 1139, line 43.

R., 1139, line 56.

R., 1139, line 66.

The item for "twelve guns and three rifles" appears R., 1139, line to rest upon the testimony of Warren. The return of 51. a part of them, and the subsequent purchase of the balance by Warren, are discussed in connection with similar items appearing in the schedule of the Dolphin. The item in the schedule "insurance, $848.75" is

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »