Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 7, 1896, and the Annual Report of the Secretary of State

Mr. Strobel to Mr. Olney.

Legation of the United States,
Santiago, April 23, 1896. (Received June 2.)

No. 80.]

Sir: I have the honor to report that the Anglo-Chilean tribunal of arbitration closed its labors some weeks ago.

The tribunal was composed of Monsieur Camille Janssen, appointed by the King of the Belgians, president of the tribunal; Mr. Alfred St. John, Her Britannic Majesty’s consul at Callao, British arbitrator; and Señor Luis Aldunate, Chilean arbitrator.

The decisions are being published from time to time in the Official Journal (Diario Oficial). I have, however, secured a statement of the result of the arbitration.

The claims may be divided into the following classes, according to the grounds on which they were presented and the principles on which they were decided:

I. For loss of property by the fire in Iquique on February 19, 1891, twenty claims, amounting to £17,319 9s. 4d. and $24,359. Disallowed, the British arbitrator dissenting on the ground that the fire was caused by the bombardment, which was considered a legitimate act of warfare.

II. For loss of property by fire in Pisagua on April 6, 1891, five claims, amounting to £4,013 18s. 2d. and $4,016.98. Disallowed unanimously on the same ground as the preceding class.

III. Loss of property by tire and pillage on the entry of the congressional troops into Valparaiso, August 28, 1891, five claims, amounting to £1,150 and $44,273.50. Disallowed, the British arbitrator dissenting on the ground that the authorities were powerless to prevent the disorder.

IV. Loss of property by the sacking of Santiago on August 29, 1891, one claim, amounting to $30,393.95. Disallowed unanimously on the same ground as the preceding class.

V. Loss of property through pillage by Government troops at Miramar in August, 1891, four claims, amounting to £4,787 19s. and $3,679.15. An agreement was made between the British and Chilean agents by which the Chilean Government paid a lump sum of £2,097 12s. in settlement of these claims. This action was probably due to the decision of the commission of the United States and Chile at Washington in favor of W. S. Shrigley, No. 4, which belonged to this class.

VI. For murder near Valparaiso, one claim, presented by the widow of the victim, for £20,000. Dismissed unanimously for want of jurisdiction, because there was no evidence that the murder had been committed by military forces.

VII. For illegal imprisonment, two cases, amounting to £5,400. Dismissed unanimously for want of jurisdiction, because there was no evidence to show that the imprisonment complained of was by order of the Chilean military forces.

VIII. For illegal imprisonment and cruelty, two claims, amounting to £25,000. Dismissed unanimously for want of jurisdiction, on two grounds: First, because the imprisonment was not by the military authorities, and second, because the acts complained of had taken place after the time fixed by the convention, which embraced the period from January 7 to August 28, 1891. The two cases of this class were Patrick Shields and Andrew McKinstrey, respectively Nos. 23 and 24, before the commission at Washington.

IX. For seizure of mules, horses, etc., in different parts of the Republic, eighteen claims, amounting to £19,586 4s. 1d. and $48,263.97. Four claims were awarded, the Chilean arbitrator dissenting in all but one case, $15,572.82. Twelve claims were disallowed for want of evidence, and on two claims the tribunal came to no decision.

X. For damage to railway lines and interruption of traffic, two claims, amounting, respectively, to £1,310 4s. 8d. and $200,000. The tribunal awarded, respectively, the Chilean arbitrator dissenting, $9,542 and $111,721.85.

XI. Services rendered by railways to the Government by conveyance of troops, war material, etc., two claims, amounting to £48,775 19s. 5d. and $40,011.98. Dismissed, with the dissenting vote of the British arbitrator, for want of jurisdiction, as being proper subjects for the courts of the country.

XII. Forced discharge of cargo arriving for railway company at Antofagasta, one claim, amounting to £184 0s. 7d. Disallowed for want of evidence.

XIII. For refusal to grant clearance papers to vessels and their consequent detention, twelve cases, amounting to £8,984 19s. 6d. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, on two grounds: First, because the act complained of was the result of an administrative order and not the act of military forces; second, because the indemnity is provided for by the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation of 1854 between Great Britain and Chile. The refusal of the Chilean arbitrator to sign these decisions is the subject of my following dispatch of this date.

XIV. For demurrage, twenty-one claims, amounting to £19,584 2s. 11d. Eighteen were unanimously disallowed because the delay was caused in consequence of warlike operations and the general state of affairs during the revolution. The remaining were dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because the damage complained of was the result of the action of the civil authorities.

XV. For preventing a vessel from communicating with people on shore at the port into which she had put in distress, one claim for £450 8s. 4d. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because it was the act of the civil authorities.

XVI. For dead freight through vessels being prevented from loading their full cargo because military forces had blown up the loading apparatus at Lobos de Afuera, five claims, amounting to £7,382 15s. 6d; four claims were awarded, £3,960 6s. 2d. The remaining claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on account of there being no evidence that it was the act of military forces.

XVII. For breach of charter party by Government through inability to furnish cargo on account of destruction by troops of loading apparatus at Lobos de Afuera, one claim, amounting to £4,218. Awarded, Chilean arbitrator dissenting, £1,500.

XVIII. For injury to vessels and delay in consequence of bombardment, four claims, amounting to £2,5181 9s. 4d. Disallowed; acts complained of being those of legitimate warfare.

XIX. For notification of vessel on high seas of the existence of a blockade which was only a paper blockade, and causing her to proceed to a different port, one claim, amounting to £989 1s. 2d. Disallowed for want of evidence.

The general result of the arbitration on these cases between Great Britain and Chile was, therefore, as follows: 101,111 claims presented, amounting to £191,928 9s. 7d. and $594,295.06; claims disallowed, £57,267 4s. 1d. and $114,987.18; claims dismissed for want of jurisdiction, £111,473 15s. 2d.; claims allowed, £7,548 18s. 2d. and $135,079.30; claims withdrawn, £439 19s. and $199,295.90; claims on which the members of the tribunal arrived at no decision, £5,861 13s. 4d. Number of claimants, 101.

Interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum was allowed in almost all the awards.

I have, etc.,

Edward H. Strobel.