ages, some compensation, for service rendered. In any case we must consider the character, situation, and employment of the vessel. The element of value and employment cannot but enter into the calculation as really as the question of time. What would be ample compensation. to one vessel would be entirely inadequate to another. What was intended by prospective catch, prospective gains and prof its, as connected with this class of cases, is somewhat shown by the character of the claims filed before the Geneva tribunal as well as before this court. In all the cases of whalers destroyed, the owners claimed not only the value of their vessels and outfits, but for the season's catch which was lost. So vessels driven from the fishing-grounds by the presence of the cruisers presented claims for catch lost, or for prospective profits, gains, and advantages. Acting upon the view of the counsel for the United States, the experts called by the Government have estimated the value of the service rendered by showing what is a fair and usual compensation paid for transporting passengers from the Aleutian Islands to San Francisco; and the counsel for the Government claims that a fixed sum per man transported should be awarded, using the price of passage above referred to as a basis of computation. But with the exception of the consumption of provisions, the injury to the claimants caused by this enforced service in no way depended upon the number of men carried. One hundred men, as much as two hundred, took the vessel from its employment; indeed, fifty-two taken by Captain Weeks in the Richmond cost him his entire summer's employment as much and as truly as one hundred and fifty-one on the James Maury. We think a sum should be awarded in each case to the owners as such simply, which sum will compensate them for the property destroyed and expenses incurred, the elements for fixing which we have already indicated in the case of the James Maury. We think there should also be awarded to the owners, jointly, a sum to be received by them in lieu of catch, and in the enjoyment of which the ship's company shall have part, in the same manner as if the sum was the proceeds of oil and bone, which sum shall include compensation for the provisions consumed by the crew of the vessel in making the voyage, and for the enforced use of the vessel during the voyage, and the compulsory service of the officers and crew, and shall also embrace the considerations that the vessels were left at a point thirty days' sail, at least, from their point of departure, to which point they had a right to claim to be returned, or to receive compensation for the failure so to be. Acting upon the principles and governed by the considerations before stated, we shall enter judgments in these several cases. In the case of the James Maury, we award to the owners alone for the loss and destruction of their property the sum of $10,324.25, which sum will be divided among them according to their respective interests in the vessel and outfits, the court having deducted the amounts severally received by the several parties from insurance in entering the judgments in their faver. And we award to all the owners, jointly, as compensation for the damage for the use of the vessel and for the compulsory service of the officers and crew, the sum of $16,925, which sum is to be received by the owners, and the same, with interest thereon at four per cent. per annum from the date of capture, is to be held by them as and for and in lieu of catch of said vessel, and such sum, with such interest, is to be distributed among the said owners and the officers and crew of said vessel in their due proportions, and in accordance with their several and respective interests in the catch of said vessel. In the case of the General Pike, we award to the owners alone for the loss and destruction of their property, and to be divided among them according to their respective interests in the vessel and outfits, the sum of $8,921.66. And to the owners jointly, for the use of the vessel and the compul sory service of the officers and crew, to be received by the owners in lieu of catch, the sum of $18,730. In the case of the Milo, we award to the owners alone the sum of $9,157.84, and to the owners jointly for the use of the vessel and the compulsory service of the officers and crew, to be received by the own ers in lieu of catch, the sum of $16,585. In the case of the Nile, we award to the owners alone the sum of $8,250.65, and to the owners jointly for the use of the vessel and the compulsory service of the officers and crew, to be received by the owners in lieu of catch, the sum of $14,375. There were several claims presented at the same time when these cases were heard, made by officers or men of these vessels, asking for compensation for loss of catch or of wages after capture. All these claims are embraced within the equity of the judgment to be made in these cases, and each of these men will receive out of the judgments herein made, in lieu of catch, all the compensation which we believe under the law we can award them. As to loss of wages after the arrival of the vessels at Honolulu or San Francisco, it need only be said that they voluntarily abandoned the enterprise, choosing to consider the voyage ended, when they might have, if they had so chosen, remained by these ships and continued their respective voyages. These claims will therefore be dismissed. WILLIAM PHILLIPS ET AL. vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 1228. In re BARK RICHMOND. The court has no authority to make compensation for damages occasioned by taking the crews of vessels destroyed by one of the so-called insurgent cruisers from a vessel captured and bonded, and carrying them to a place of safety; the vessel for which compensation is claimed never having been captured. The damage under these circumstances is too remote. A statement of the case will be found in the opinion of the court. Mr. William W. Crapo for the complainants. Mr. J. A. J. Creswell for the respondent. JEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court: This is a claim made by the owners of the bark Richmond for compensation for the use of the said vessel, and damage for consequent loss of the catch of the same. It appears that the bark Richmond was, in the month of June, 1865, in the Northern Pacific Ocean, near Behring's Straits, pursuing the whaling business. The confederate cruiser Shenandoah had captured a large number of whalers, and among them the bark General Pike The others had been burned and the General Pike spared, and the officers and crews of the other vessels, to the number of 252, placed on board of her for conveyance to the nearest port, or to any port which they might be able to reach. The last of these captures was on the 28th day of June. On the 1st day of July the master of the Richmond felt himself compelled to take on board his own vessel a portion of the officers and men from the General Pike under circumstances fully detailed by him in a "statement" annexed to the petition, which is as follows. We also add the statement of the masters, made at the request of Captain Weeks: Statement of the master of the Richmond. We left Honolulu in the bark Richmond, bound on a whaling-cruise to the Arctio Ocean. While in the prosecution of such, on our arrival in the vicinity of Behring Straits, we came up with a whale-ship on fire. Not knowing the cause of it, I began to save such articles as I could from the wreck, as she had drifted into the ice, and her mast falling over the side, I found I could save many articles valuable to the use of my own bark, and as the wind was against me, I was not losing much time by so doing. While doing this a ship came to me with all sail set, steering to the southward, hailing me as he passed by, telling me there was a pirate close at hand, at the same time advising me to flee, as he was doing, for probably all that remained would be destroyed. But on due consideration I determined not to leave, for I would as quick lose the ship as go without oil. I came to the conclusion I would await a southerly storm or foggy spell usual at such times of the year, and take advantage of the opportunity and get through the straits in spite of the Shenandoah, as it proved to be. My experience in those waters would enable me to do this. While waiting for a favorable opportunity to do this we raised a sail in the north coming toward us. A few hours after the wind died away and a boat was lowered from her and came in pursuit of us. Coming alongside I was surprised to see so many faces of shipmasters. They had been taken by the Shenandoah and put on board the General Pike. They stated they were crowded and suffering from want of room, &c. They all joined in begging me for the sake of humanity to relieve them. I went on board of the General Pike to see for myself, and found they had not misrepresented the matter. I next returned to my own vessel, consulted with my officers, and came to the conclusion we ought to relieve them. I then told the shipmasters and prisoners that if they still insisted on my taking a portion of them, and would give me the same in writing, with their signatures, which was agreed to and signed by all the shipmasters, I dare not do otherwise. Under such conditions I had to submit. They put on board of me 52 men; with those I sailed for Honolulu, and thereby losing my season. Statement of the masters. W. P. WEEKS, Master AT SEA, July 1, 1865. We, the undersigned, do solemnly swear that our ships were burned by the pirate Shenandoah, and we were placed with our crews on board of bark General Pike, 252 men, all told; and being afraid of sickness, on account of the crowded state of the ship, we requested Captain Weeks, of bark Richmond, to take some of our men, which be kindly consented to do out of humanity's sake. O. G. ROBINSON, Captain bark Gypsey. The conduct of the master of the Richmond, as shown in this statement, in refusing to flee from the Shenandoah, saying he would "as quick lose the ship as to go without oil," supporting his declaration by his action in remaining, and in finally yielding to considerations of humanity what he would not yield to fear, is worthy of the highest praise. His desire of making a cargo of oil was greater than his fear of caps ture by the Shenandoah. What fear could not constrain him to do, feelings of humanity did. After a careful examination of the necessities he voluntarily abandoned his own adventure to save the lives of the officers and men put in peril upon the overcrowded General Pike. Nothing more honorable or praiseworthy has been shown in all our hearings. Can this court make compensation for the loss thereby incurred? We are compelled to say that under no view of the act of Congress creating this court can we find authority so to do. The claims admissible before us must be such as directly result from damage caused by the so-called insurgent cruisers. In two cases heretofore considered by us, where vessels were captured by the Alabama and the crews of other vessels put on board for transportation to a port of discharge, we have awarded compensation for such compulsory service. But both those vessels had been actually captured. Here there was no capture. The measure of damage for goods destroyed by the confederate cruisers is the value of the goods at the place and time of shipment, with charges, and marine insurance actually paid, with interest on the aggregate so produced from the time of shipment till the date of destruction, at six per cent. The measure of damage for loss of freight in cases when freight has begun to be earned is the net freight, which is to be found by deducting from the gross freight the expenses of completing the voyage, and of discharging the cargo at the port of destination, including all inward port charges and disbursements, with a further deduction of a proper sum for the depreciation of the vessel while performing the remainder of her voyage, and of interest on the valuation of the vessel from the date of her destruction to the time of her probable arrival if the voyage had not been interrupted. In fixing the value of goods purchased with coin or currency other than the legal-tender currency of the United States, the value of coin in currency at the date of purchase will be taken, when payment was actually made in coin at that time; where payment was actually so made at a subsequent time, the value of coin at that time will be taken, if the payment was made according to the usual course of trade. If not made according to the usual course of trade, the value of coin will be computed at the lowest rate, whether at the time of purchase or at the time when payment would have been made in the usual course of business, or when the payment was actually made. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Henry W. Hubbell and Robert L. Taylor were the owners of ths each of the ship Winged Racer, her outfits and freight-and each owned one undivided half part of the cargo. Edward H. Gillilan ownedths of the vessel, outfits, and freight. In October, 1867, Taylor failed in business and made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors to the claimants Sherman & Irvin and one John R. Gardner, since deceased. The Winged Racer, on the 8th October, 1863, sailed from Manila for New York, and on the 16th November she, with her cargo, was destroyed by the Alabama, near the coast of Sumatra, in the Java Sea. The value of the vessel was claimed at $60,000. Her cargo consisted of 5,810 bales of Manila hemp, 9,607 bags of Manila sugars, 100 bales Manila hide-cuttings, 100 boxes China camphor. Its value was claimed. Indemnity was also claimed for loss of freight, stores, outfits, port-dues, &c. Mr. Wm. Peet for the complainants Hubbell and Gillilan: 1. Under the act this question is to be determined— a. According to the principles of law. b. By the provisions of the act. c. By the merits of each case. 2. The principles of law applicable to the question are a. Damages are more liberally awarded in cases "ex delicto" than in those " ex contractu." (Sedgwick on Dam., pp. 79, 563, n. (1); Addison on Torts, (3 ed.,) 984; Shearman & R. on Negligence, sec. 894; Sharper v. Brice, 2 W. Bl., 942; Heard v. Holman, 19 C. B., N. S. 1.) b. Future profits are often expressly allowed, and if the amount of the damage sustained cannot be accurately determined, the wrong-doer must bear the burden of such difficulty, and in cases of doubt pay enough to insure full compensation. (Shearman and R. on Neg., sec. 395; Leeds v. Amherst, 20 Bea., 239; Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How., 101; The Rhode Island, 2 Blatch., 113; The Narragansett, Olcott, 388; The Lake, 2 Wall. jr., p. 52.) c. Profits directly resulting from a wrong are often awarded as an element of damage when not remote, and not dependent upon some future event so as to be uncertain or contingent. (Shearman & Red. on Neg., sec. 599; Walker v. Post, 6 Duer, 363-373; Griffin v. Colver, 16 N. Y., 489; St. John v. N. Y., 6 Duer, 315; Lacour v. N. Y., 3 Duer, 406; Sewall's Fall Bridge v. Fish, 3 Foster, 171; Shelbyville R. Co. v. Sewark, 3 Ind., 471; New Haven, &c., v. Vanderbilt, 16 Conn., 420.) 3. The claim now made is not excluded by any provision of the act. 4. The measure of damages in accordance with these principlesa. For the loss of the ship is her value at the outset of her voyage. (Aruauld on Insurance, 315; Stevens on Average, 190; Snell v. Delaware Insurance Co., 4 Dall., 430.) b. For loss of freight is the amount of freight which would have been earned but for the capture. (The Gazelle, 2 W. Rob., 229; Williamson . Barrett, 13 How., 101; The Ann Caroline, 2 Wall., 536; Ralston v. The State Rights, Crabbe, 22; The Rebecca, Blatch. & H., 347; The New Jersey, Olcott, 444; Abbott on Shipping, pp. 601, 527, quoting the Copenhagen, 1 Rob. Ád., 28: The Der Mohr, 4 Rob. Ád., 314; The Prosper, Edw. Ad., 72-6; The Fortuna, Edw. Ad., 56, 57; The Lively, 1 Gall., 315; The Narragansett, 1 Blatch., 211.) c. The loss of outfit is the cost of the outfit at the outset of the voyage. If full freight is allowed, the measure of damages will be the value of the outfit on board at the time of destruction. Under this head |