I may add that Mr. Crane has devoted a great deal of time and attention
to the question of these claims ever since the commission has been
sitting, and the amount which he succeeded in persuading the
[Page 220]
British representative upon
the commission, Sir John Ardagh, to recommend his Government to offer us
does great credit to Mr. Crane’s tact and skill as a negotiator, as well
as to the desire of His Britannic Majesty’s Government to deal in a
liberal spirit with the claims put forward by our Government.
I would particularly call your attention to Mr. Crane’s observations,
under the heading “General remarks,” upon the misleading computation in
the tabular statement, setting forth the percentage of the awards to the
claims of each country, which appeared in the Times of the 15th instant.
Mr. Crane points out that the proper method of estimating the percentage
of the awards to each country is not the relation that such awards bear
to the total amount claimed by all the subjects or citizens of each
power, but the amount averaged by each claimant. If the latter mode of
computation be adopted, it will be seen how very much more, in
proportion to the number of our claimants, has been awarded to us than
to any other power.
[Inclosure.]
report on the claims submitted by the united
states government to the south african deportation compensation
commission.
In general.
Altogether 15 claims were presented, the claimants being Alfred J.
Giebner, Seigfried J. Ahrberg, Frank Crus, Francisco Pudjunos, John
Anderson, William Phelps, Dr. A. F. Conroy, Anna Wedekind, Charles
Fowles, John Joseph Maloney, H. M. Marmorstein, Johan
Sundt,-------Sharp, ------Lyons, and ------Nelkin. Of these persons
5 claim to be native-born citizens of the United States, although no
evidence is furnished as to the date or place of their birth, and 8
claim to be naturalized citizens. Of the other 2, Lyons and Sharp,
nothing is known. Eight were deported on suspicion of being
concerned in the Johannesburg plot to murder Lord Roberts and other
English officers; I was imprisoned at Natal as a Boer spy; I was
captured on the battlefield while serving, as he alleges, with a Red
Cross ambulance corps, attached to the Boer forces; and 3 were
compelled to leave the country for various reasons. Two were,
strictly speaking, not forcibly deported, but appear to have
voluntarily left South Africa, and at their own expense. The entire
amount claimed on account of actual losses was $52,278.29.
The commission heard all of the claims, so far as an ex parte
statement of them could be made, except those of Lyons and Sharp. No
claim has been forwarded from the Department of State on behalf of
these last-named claimants, but it was mentioned to the commission
that these persons had appealed to the United States Government and
that their names were embraced in the letters addressed by his
excellency the American ambassador to Lord Lansdowne on the 24th of
October, 1900, when the claims of American subjects were first
brought to the attention of His Majesty’s Government. Sundt’s claim
was presented to the commission by his solicitors in England,
Messrs. Tyrell, Lewis, Lewis & Broadment, and Sundt was orally
examined by the commissioners. His claim was rejected on the ground
that it appeared from his own admission that he had voluntarily left
South Africa, and traveled to England at his own expense, and
therefore his case was one which did not come within the
jurisdiction of the commission. The claimant subsequently appealed
to the Department of State, and upon instructions from the
ambassador his claim was again presented to the English
authorities.
The commission announced that they would hear the various claims
without insisting upon any technical formality in the way of proof;
that they would give the representative of His Majesty’s Government,
Sir John Ardagh, an opportunity to explain why each individual had
been deported, and that then the claimants might put in any evidence
they could adduce in reply to the charges made by Sir John Ardagh.
This course was entered upon, but after the claims had been gone
through it was
[Page 221]
intimated
by Sir John Ardagh that his Government desired, irrespective of any
action by the commission, to agree, if possible, with the
representatives of the various Governments upon a lump sum to be
received by each of the powers in full satisfaction of the demands
of their respective claimants, it being understood that His
Majesty’s Government was not to be concerned as to how the sums so
paid were allocated among the various claimants.
I communicated this proposition to his excellency the ambassador in
my letter of the 29th of August last, and stated that in my opinion,
for reasons therein stated, it was wise to accept it. In due course
I received authority to enter into negotiations with Sir John
Ardagh, and after numerous interviews, extending over some weeks, an
offer of £6,000 was made on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to
settle the American claims, and I was instructed to accept the same.
The result was announced at the meeting of the commission which was
held on the 28th of October, 1901, and the commission therefore
ceased to have any further consideration of the matter.
The settlement, in my opinion, is a very favorable one to the United
States, both in respect to the substance of the claims and the
relation they sustained to those put forward by other Governments.
The amount awarded to the American Government is more than 100 per
cent greater than that allowed to any other Government, whether the
amount claimed or the number of claimants be considered. I trust I
may be permitted in this connection to express my appreciation of
the courtesy, sense of fairness, and extreme indulgence shown by Sir
John Ardagh throughout the protracted negotiations before the
settlement was arrived at. It was extremely difficult to determine
the merits of most of the claims, not only so far as the facts were
concerned, but in the application of the principles of public
international law and comity, to assertion of facts which were
incapable of proof and were therefore considerately assumed.
* * * * * * *
General remarks.
Since the foregoing was written a summary of the award was made by
His Majesty’s Government and the percentage of the award to claims
has been published by the Times newspaper of the 15th of November,
1901, as follows:
Countries. |
Number of claimants. |
Amount claimed. |
Amount awarded. |
Percentage of
awards to claims. |
Austria-Hungary |
112 |
£43,800 |
£15,000 |
34.24 |
Belgium |
6 |
6,000 |
800 |
13.33 |
Denmark |
3 |
900 |
250 |
27.77 |
France |
1 |
20,000 |
|
|
Germany |
199 |
245,324 |
30,000 |
12.22 |
Greece |
1 |
616 |
|
|
Holland |
1,139 |
706,355 |
37,500 |
5.30 |
Russia |
28 |
10,175 |
4,000 |
39.31 |
Italy |
113 |
51,000 |
12,000 |
28.52 |
Spain |
2 |
520 |
150 |
28.84 |
Sweden and
Norway |
8 |
4,000 |
1,000 |
25 |
Switzerland |
5 |
760 |
250 |
32.89 |
United
States |
14 |
27,000 |
6,000 |
22.22 |
As it is not improbable that the award of the British Government in
this instance may be quoted as a precedent in the future, it should
be noted that the above calculation gives a misleading idea of the
manner in which the claims have been settled, as must any
calculation based upon the relation the award made bears to the sums
claimed. The amount claimed is too often not the sum which a
claimant honestly thinks is justly due to him for the loss he has
suffered, but it is the sum which his caprice or cupidity fixes as
that which may posssibly be allowed him. In the present instance the
allowances demanded for “moral” damages by other claimants than the
Americans were very small. Among the American claimants themselves
there was a very wide disparity in appraising their losses. Of 3 men
in the same occupation, and the same employ, and the same domestic
surroundings, deported together, under almost identically the same
circumstances, 1 places his demand, at $5,220; another, at
$11,112.50; and another, at $50,000.
A fairer way of ascertaining what the award amounts to is by
computing what it averages per claimant, practically when, as in
this instance, those who make the claims were of practically the
same walk of life and employment, and deported under like
conditions.
[Page 222]
The result of such a computation is as follows:
Countries. |
Number of claimants. |
Amount awarded. |
Average per claimant. |
|
|
£ |
£ |
s. |
d. |
Austria-Hungary |
112 |
15,000 |
133 |
18 |
6 |
Belgium |
6 |
800 |
133 |
6 |
8 |
Denmark |
3 |
250 |
83 |
6 |
8 |
Germany |
199 |
30,000 |
150 |
15 |
0 |
Holland |
1,139 |
37,500 |
32 |
18 |
4 |
Russia |
28 |
4,000 |
142 |
17 |
1 |
Italy |
113 |
12,000 |
106 |
3 |
10 |
Spain |
2 |
150 |
75 |
0 |
0 |
Sweden and Norway |
8 |
1,000 |
125 |
0 |
0 |
Switzerland |
5 |
250 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
United
States |
14 |
6,000 |
428 |
11 |
5 |
I can not conclude this report without drawing the attention of the
Government to the fact, disclosed by affidavits filed with the State
Department, that some of the claimants have contracted to pay their
local attorneys for presenting their claims 50 per cent of whatever
sum may be awarded to them. In the case of one of the attorneys the
fee which he will receive, if the recommendations which I have made
in this report are carried out, will amount to £750. His services
consisted in filing memorials which, although he has been given
ample opportunity to do so, have not been supported by a single word
of proof of the assertions which they contain. He has been
acquainted with the charges made against his clients, but has either
been indifferent to them or unable to meet them. If it had been
necessary for him to embark in protracted litigation in their behalf
and to have devoted time, labor, and skill achieving success for
them, such compensation might not have been excessive. But in this
case his labors have been of no material advantage.
I therefore trust the Government may find some way of letting it be
known that in future such claims do not need the intermediation of
attorneys, but can be presented directly by citizens themselves. As
the appeals I have made to some of these attorneys to furnish me
with evidence to meet the accusation made by the British Government
against their clients have met with no response whatever, I think it
is only fair to presume that either they no longer represent their
former clients, or that the latter are not now living. In either
case the Government will be justified in refusing to pay over to the
attorneys such sums as may be allotted to their clients until the
latter have been directly communicated with, and have had the
circumstances explained to them, and have been given an opportunity
to confirm or withdraw any powers of attorney they may have
heretofore executed for the collection of their respective
claims.
R. Newton Crane.
Temple, November 16,
1901.