ACTUAL LOSSES TO CLAIMANTS.
The practical question remains, as to the actual losses of the claimants. Here the evidence is precise and full.
Our own Government, when pressing these claims upon France, gave an official estimate of their value. On one occasion it put them above fifteen million dollars.[255] Afterward it put them at twenty million dollars. The latter estimate is found in a report from the Secretary of State to Congress, under date of January 18, 1799, where it speaks of “unjust and cruel depredations on American commerce, which have brought distress on multitudes and ruin on many of our citizens, and occasioned a total loss of property to the United States of probably more than twenty millions of dollars.”[256] Inquiry into the losses confirms this statement. From evidence presented to committees in former years, and now belonging to history, it has been estimated that there were eight hundred and ninety-eight vessels included in the claims released to France.[257]
The American vessels despoiled by France between 1792, the outbreak of the European war, and July 31, 1801, when the Convention of 1800, with its proviso, was ratified by Napoleon Bonaparte, have been reckoned at two thousand two hundred and ninety, embracing as follows: first, vessels captured by the French; secondly, vessels captured by the French and Spaniards conjointly; thirdly, vessels detained by embargo at Bordeaux. The following list shows how the account stands.
List of Vessels in different Classes despoiled by France.[258]
| Whole number | 2,290 | ||
| From which deduct as follows:— | |||
| 1. Vessels paid for by special decrees of France | 14 | ||
| 2. Vessels paid for under the Convention of 1803, viz.:— | |||
| For embargoes | 103 | ||
| For contracts | 270 | ||
| For prize causes under order of restitution | 6 | ||
| —— | 379 | ||
| 3. Vessels rejected under Convention of 1803, viz.:— | |||
| For contracts or supplies | 102 | ||
| For prize causes | 26 | ||
| —— | 128 | ||
| 4. Vessels paid for by Spain under the Florida treaty of 1819 | 173 | ||
| 5. Vessels rejected under Florida treaty | 191 | ||
| 6. Vessels paid for under Convention with France of July 4, 1831, being for captures between the signing and ratification of the Convention of 1800 | 4 | ||
| 7. Vessels rejected for want of merit, neglect of claimants, loss of proof, and other contingencies, reckoned at | 503 | ||
| —— | 1,392 | ||
| ——— | |||
| 898 |
Thus we are brought to the number of eight hundred and ninety-eight vessels bartered to France.
To arrive at the value of these vessels, the Committee have been led to look at the estimate of vessels under conventions with other powers for the payment of similar claims. Here is a list allowed by different powers, with the average of each vessel:—
| Vessels. | Averages. | |
|---|---|---|
| Great Britain | 217 | $47,672.81 |
| Spain | 40 | 8,136.49 |
| France | 357 | 10,504.20 |
| Spain | 320 | 15,625.00 |
| Denmark | 112 | 5,987.17 |
| France | 361 | 12,984.71 |
| Naples | 51 | 37,745.00 |
| Spain | 20 | 30,000.00 |
| Mexico | 64 | 31,658.43 |
| Colombia | 5 | 21,474.53 |
| ——— | ————— | |
| 1,547 | $221,788.34 |
From this list it appears that Mexico has paid as high an average as $31,000 for each vessel; Naples, $37,000; and Great Britain, $47,000. The general average of the whole list is $19,000.
If the vessels despoiled by France were estimated according to the highest average, namely, that of vessels despoiled by Great Britain, the sum-total would swell to no less than $42,206,000; estimated according to the general average, the amount is $17,062,000.
But the valuation which has been deemed most satisfactory is that presented in the indemnity paid by Spain for the French spoliations on our commerce in her ports during this period, amounting, for 173 vessels, to $2,845,619, being an average of $16,500 for each vessel. Adopting this average, we have as the aggregate value of the 898 vessels yielded to France under the Convention of 1800, and lost to our merchants, the sum of $14,817,000,—nearly fifteen million dollars.
This estimate, tested by the official statements, fixing the spoliations in October, 1797, at fifteen millions, and in January, 1799, at twenty millions, will appear at least not excessive,—adding for the continued spoliations during the succeeding two years and a half to July, 1801, only the very moderate allowance of two and one half millions, (being in the ratio of but one fourth the increase for the fifteen months between the two former dates,) and deducting payments. Here are the figures:—
| Official estimate of January, 1799 | $20,000,000 | |
| Additional to July, 1801, say | 2,500,000 | |
| ————— | ||
| $22,500,000 | ||
| Deduct therefrom— | ||
| 1. Vessels paid for by France, fifty-two cases, at the average $16,500 | $858,000 | |
| 2. Debts paid under Convention of 1803 | 3,750,000 | |
| 3. French spoliations, paid for under treaty with Spain of 1819 | 2,845,619 | |
| ————— | 7,453,619 | |
| ————— | ||
| Sum-total, after deductions | $15,046,381 |
If to this estimate interest be added, even at the smallest rate, the losses of these sufferers will assume vastly larger proportions. More than sixty years have run their course since the United States, by a public act and for a valuable consideration, became their debtor. From the beginning the country has enjoyed without price all the “national” benefits originally secured at their expense, as part of the national capital with its bountiful income, while these claimants have been shut out from their property, and all its just profits. If interest be due on any national debt, it is difficult to see why it is not due here.
Never was a case stronger. Nor is there any doubt with regard to the rule. According to the best authorities, whether publicists or courts, interest is justly due. Though swelling the national liability, it is none the less an item in the case.
It will be borne in mind that these claims are under the Law of Nations. As such, the rule of damages is under that law, and not Municipal Law. Therefore the Committee resort to the Law of Nations. Among all the authorities, none has spoken more fully and clearly than Rutherforth; nor is there any one whose words on this point are oftener cited. Here is the rule:—
“In estimating the damages which any one has sustained, where such things as he has a perfect right to are unjustly taken from him, or withholden, or intercepted, we are to consider not only the value of the thing itself, but the value likewise of the fruits or profits that might have arisen from it. He who is the owner of the thing is likewise the owner of such fruits or profits. So that it is as properly a damage to be deprived of them as it is to be deprived of the thing itself.”[259]
Grotius says substantially the same.[260] So does Vattel, who declares that claimants may obtain “what is due, together with interest and damages.”[261] And Wheaton copies Vattel.[262] The Supreme Court of the United States gives the same rule with nearly equal simplicity:—
“The prime cost, or value of the property lost at the time of the loss, and, in case of injury, the diminution in value by reason of the injury, with interest upon such valuation, affords the true measure for assessing damages.”[263]
Such is the law of interest, and the Committee refer to it as illustrating the accumulated losses which await satisfaction at the hands of Congress.