Add one sixth in order to increase the rate to 7 per cent....

2,792, 366 45 465,394 40

3,257,760 85

The average time for the computation of interest on the value of property destroyed by the Florida and her tender is (about) ten years and one month.

Whatever may be the sum fixed by the Tribunal as a base for the computation of interest, and whatever may be the rate that it shall decide to allow, the average time for the computation should be the same in all cases, namely, ten years and one month.

The average time for the computation of interest on the value of property destroyed by the Shenandoah is nearly eight years and five months.

If the Arbitrators reject as double claims the claims for insurance in column five, (5,) the American Statement will be as follows:

Whatever may be the sum fixed by the Tribunal as a base for the computation of interest, and whatever may be the rate that it decides to allow, the average time for computation should be the same in all cases, namely, eight years and five months.

XIII.-COMPARATIVE TABLES, PRESENTED BY THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE 19TH OF AUGUST, 1872, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF THE TRIBUNAL.

In accordance with the instructions of the Tribunal, the Agent and Counsel of the United States have caused tables to be prepared, showing the differences which exist between the statements of claims and losses submitted to the Tribunal on the part of the United States, for the estimates based on these statements which have been presented on the part of Great Britain.

The claims presented by the United States are supported by sworn statements presented by those who possess the necessary information, and they exhibit in detail the items which go to form the sum total, and the names of all who have made reclamation, whatever may be the sum which the Tribunal may see fit to award. The claims on the part of private individuals thus computed, verified, and submitted, are supported by all the guarantees of their good faith and their validity, as well for their general amount as for the other facts concerning them which governments are in the habit of requiring, in such cases, from their own citizens. It thus appears that these computations show the entire extent of all private losses which the result of the adjudications of this Tribunal ought to enable the United States to make compensation for.

In certain cases, however, there is reason to believe that more claimants than one appear for the same injury. In such cases the United States have impartially presented the statements of all the claimants, intending, when the proper time should arrive, to endeavor to show, from the evidence, what sum Great Britain should in justice be held to pay, by way of compensation for real losses, without prejudice to conflicting rights. We have done our best to prepare tables by which it seems to us that the Tribunal must be enabled to determine with sufficient accuracy the amount of these double claims, if indeed any such exist.

It is not easy to conform to those instructions of the Tribunal which require the preparation of tables which can be compared with those of Great Britain. While the American statement sets forth details, and furnishes the Tribunal with all the necessary means of making a minute examination, vessel by vessel, and claimant by claimant, the British statement is a generalization based on certain facts which are taken for granted, and which exist, in the opinion of the authors, in the commercial world. It is not therefore possible for us to present comparative views touching the various claimants in detail, or even touching the various vessels destroyed by the cruisers.

The authors of the British statement have classified our claims in so arbitrary a manner that we are forced to confine ourselves to a comparison of the sums total contained in their classified tables. On our side, a knowledge of these sums total is reached by following the evidence, step by step; on theirs by a process of reasoning. The two systems differ so widely that a detailed comparison is impossible. All that remains for us to do is to beg the Tribunal to refer to what has already been said on this subject in the American Argument. (American Argument, note D.)

We are, therefore, forced to follow the British arrangement in order to compare the sums total, since it is impossible to compare our views in detail or according to any combination differing from that which is followed in their arrangement. We give their classification below: A.-Claims arising from the capture of whalers or fishing-vessels.

B. Similar claims arising from vessels carrying cargoes composed of one kind of goods.

C.-Similar claims arising from vessels carrying cargoes composed of various kinds of goods.

D.—Similar claims arising from vessels in ballast.

E and F.-Divers claims which could not properly be placed in any of the above categories.

Before coming to special vessels we desire to call attention to three well-marked points of difference between the two statements.

(a) The United States ask here, as they have already done in their memorial and in their argument, that the Tribunal should grant them interest on the sums which they may determine to regard as the extent of the original injury, as a necessary and indispensable part of the indemnity due to them in consequence of that injury. This interest ought to be at the ordinary rate which prevails in the United States, where the damages were suffered and where the losses are to be indemnified. The interest should be computed from the time when the losses occurred up to the time fixed by the Tribunal for the payment.

(b) In the American statement, especially in the claims arising from the destruction of whaling vessels, expected profits, or "the prospective catch," is included in the computation of damages. (See American Argument, note D.)

(c) According to the arbitrary assumption of the British statement, that the freight claimed by the United States in the name of their merchant navy constitutes "gross freight," this statement rejects all claims for freight, while, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we assume that these claims are for "net freight."

These three classes form in the sum total a great part of the differences which exist between the two statements.

In accordance with the suggestions of some of the Arbitrators we have eliminated from the tables the claims submitted in favor of whaling vessels for the "prospective catch," the amount of which would be $4,009,302.50; but we by no means intend to withdraw these claims, or to intimate that we do not consider them just. On this subject we refer the Arbitrators to the note alluded to at the close of the Ameri. can Argument. Should the Tribunal share our views, the claims for injuries suffered by these vessels should be proportionately diminished. In case it should not share our views, we should ask it to grant us, as an equivalent, interest at the rate of 25 per cent. on the value of the vessel and equipments.

We have been obliged to trust to arbitrary estimates in regard to two subjects, because there is no sworn evidence in relation to them; viz: (A.) The pay of the officers and crews of the captured vessels. (B.) The value of their personal effects.

We have every reason to believe that the sums total which we submit to the Tribunal are for the most part correct in substance.

(A.) We calculate for each vessel of class A, whose burden did not exceed 300 tons, one captain at $150 per month; one first officer at $100 per month; one second officer at $75 per month; one third officer at $60 per month; one fourth officer at $50 per month; four helmsmen at $40 each per month; four helmsmen at $30 each per month; and four