of February 23, 1924), the matter was presented to the department through diplomatic channels in the form of a claim for $297,410.90, which was later increased by the addition of interest to $373,189.52. Of this sum, $235,452.81 was for demurrage during the period of repairs-112 days at £4423 per day, the rate of hire earned by the Hassel on the charter under which the vessel was operating at the time of the collision, and $61,958.09 was for the cost of repairs to the Hassel and the other expenses incidental to the collision-covering the following items:

7

Expense of shifting bunkers to survey damage.

8 Overtime to crew while making temporary repairs..

9 Shipbroker's fee for attendance, labor, and attention during ship's

stay in Bordeaux..

Francs

180,000.00

1,866.00

6,000.00
490.00
227. 10

50.00

1, 238.80
521.00

$33,042, 68 342.54 1, 100.92 89.90 41.66

9. 14

227. 19

95.25

The War Department, to which the matter was referred, recommended the disallowance of the following items:

Telegraph expenses

do

31 Telegrams and postage

Total deductions, general account

Deductions, demurrage: All sums charged for demurrage in excess

of 56 days

Interest, disallowed

Total, all deductions

The War Department stated that it made these deductions for the following reasons:

Item 6: Solicitors' fees.-The United States is not properly chargeable with claimant's cost arising incident to preparing or asserting his claim.

Item 10: Dumas, attorneys' fees, etc.-Deducted for the reasons stated under item 6.

Items 12-13: Overtime, engine and deck crew.-Since the claimants have an item of demurrage based on the total earnings of the ship, the wages of the crew are properly chargeable to operating expenses. Operating expenses in a going concern are met from earnings. These items are, in effect, a duplicate of damages.

Item 16: Telegrams and petties.-Correspondence in regard to the vessel, even in respect to damages sustained, or relating thereto, is not necessarily a damage flowing from the collision. This item is considered in the light of ordinary overhead expenses, met from earnings, and covered by the demurrage. Items 18 and 19: Spring water.-These items are not considered damage but are in fact part of the operating costs. As demurrage based on full earnings of the vessel, without deductions of expenses of operation saved while undergoing repairs, is an item of damages, these items are in effect duplications in the damage account.

Items 23 (one item): Permanent depreciation.-The United States, if liable, is chargeable only with the reasonable cost of repairs. The repair contract in this case provided that the ship be placed in the same condition as before the collision. Under these conditions, there could be no permanent depreciation. Damages which, although consequent upon the collision, do not immediately or necessarily flow from it, can not be recovered against the ship in fault for the collision.

Items 24 and 25: Insurance.-These items are a part of the normal overhead or operating expenses, met from earnings. Demurrage, based on the full earnings of the vessel, is an item in the damage account. While these items are in fact not damage, should they be included as such they would be a duplicate in the damage account.

Items 26 to 28, and 31: Telegrams and postage.-These items are deducted for the reasons given under item 16.

Demurrage.-A period of approximately 50 days was estimated by the repairers as necessary to place the Hassel in sound condition, and a contract to execute the repairs required, for the sum of 180,000 francs, was entered into. It appears that the repairers did their work negligently and that it was necessary to have some of it overhauled. This caused delay and more than 100 days elapsed before the vessel was returned to its owners. The War Department maintained that some of this time represented delays attributable to the It decided, however, that the work could not have been done in less than 56 days and accordingly admitted liability under this item for that number of days.

owners.

Interest.-The War Department held that there was no obligation to pay interest, and the whole of this item was accordingly deducted.

Summary.-The War Department recommended the allowance of $164,169.23, made up of the following items:

The Norwegian Government has indicated its willingness to accept this amount as a compromise settlement of the claim.

Had the American vessel, the Ausable, not been engaged in the public service of the United States, the owners of the Norwegian vessel would, of course, have had a remedy in the courts against the Ausable. The absence of a remedy does not, however, absolve the Government from liability. It seems to be generally recognized in international practice that notwithstanding the immunity of public vessels from the judicial remedies usually obtaining with respect to other vessels, a government should make reparation for the damages done the nationals of other countries by its public vessels. In support of this proposition a memorandum, a copy of which was sent to Senator Lodge in connection with the bill introduced by him in this case (Senate bill 2718, 68th Cong., 1st sess.), is submitted. It will be observed from this memorandum that this Government in a number of cases has collected indemnities from other governments for damages inflicted by their public vessels, and has in turn paid indemnities in like cases.

As the American vessel, the Ausable, apparently was responsible for the collision between it and the Hassel, and as the sum of $164,169.23 recommended by the President is considered to be a conservative estimate of the provable damages sustained by the owners of the Hassel, it is believed that this sum should be appropriated.

Concerning liability under international law for losses resulting from collisions caused by the negligence of public vessels: The Government of the United States in dealing with international claims involving damage to private citizens and private vessels caused by collisions with public vessels appears clearly to have committed itself to the principle that a nation is responsible for much damage.

In connection with this point, it may be of interest briefly to note the policy of the Government with respect to claims of its own citi

zens.

Judge Cooley states the following principle:

Even the State or General Government may be guilty of individual wrongs, for while each is a sovereignty, it is a corporation also, and as such is capable of doing wrongful acts. The difficulty here is with the remedy, not with the right. No sovereignty is subject to suits except with its own consent. But either this consent is given by general law, or some tribunal is established with power to hear all just claims; or if neither of these is done, the tort remains and it is always to be presumed that the legislative authority will make the proper provision for redress when its attention is directed to the injury. (Cooley on Torts, p. 122.)

In a report under date of February 28, 1899, submitted on behalf of the Senate Committee on Claims by Senator Hoar appears the following statement with regard to the responsibility of the Government for injuries occasioned by the fault of its agents:

The committee think that the Government of the United States is not liable for loss or damage occasioned to private citizens by reason of any imperfection in the performance of the ordinary functions of Government, or by reason of the acts, omissions, or negligence of its officers or agents in the discharge of such functions. * * *

*

* *

But we are of opinion that there are two classes of cases where sound public policy requires the United States and all other sovereign governments to hold themselves responsible for injuries occasioned by the negligence of their agents. Another class of cases where this responsibility is recognized is where the Government is using or managing property through its agents under circumstances where these agents mingle on terms of equality with the general mass of citizens, and where the security of the citizens requires that the same obligation shall rest upon them and that it shall be enforced by similar responsibility as in the case of private persons. Congress has always recognized the obligation of the Government for injuries occasioned by the fault of the officers of its naval and other vessels in maritime collisions. (Cong. Rec., 50th Cong., 2d sess., p. 3, p. 2615.)

On February 21, 1885, the American schooner Lanie Cobb, while at anchor in the harbor of Laguayra, was run into by the Venezuelan schooner Ana Eulogia, which was owned by the President of Venezuela and was in the service of the Venezuelan Government. In September of that year the American minister at Caracas was instructed to request from the Venezuelan Government indemnity of $1,985. In an instruction under date of September 3, 1885, to the American minister to Venezuela, Secretary of State Bayard said:

The right of our citizens to demand compensation for damages which they may sustain, as in the accident to the Lanie Cobb, as well as that of a Goyernment to insist upon due reparation of such wrongs in behalf of its citizens. whenever necessary, is one which belongs to them by the rules of international law, and which is so recognized by all civilized countries. (Moore's Digest, Vol. VI, p. 757.)

In Bequet's Repertoire du Droit Administratif the following principle is stated (23, p. 175):

It is not only the army which by its acts can occasion accidents to individuals. The navy causes even more formidable ones, and collisions between vessels of commerce and ships of war have sometimes extremely serious results. It is admitted without dispute that if there has been fault on the part of the officers of the fleet, faulty maneuvering, negligence, or imprudence on their part the government is responsible.

Numerous cases might be cited in which governments have made compensation for damages resulting from collisions between merchant vessels and public vessels.

The umpire in the arbitration under the convention concluded between the United States and Great Britain February 8, 1853, awarded to the owners of the British brig Confidence the sum of $9,946.20 for losses sustained as a result of the running down of this vessel by the American frigate Constitution, which it was determined was in fault. (Moore, International Arbitrations, vol. 3, p. 3063).

The arbitral commission established under the treaty of May 8, 1871, between the United States and Great Britain unanimously awarded the sum of $14,800.81 as the value of the British brigantine Madeira and her cargo, which were sunk through a collision with the

American transport Clyde, which the commission held to be in fault. (Moore, Arbitrations, Vol. IV, p. 4395.)

Copies of the decisions rendered in the cases of the British steamships Sidra and Newchwang by the American and British claims arbitration tribunal, organized under the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on August 18, 1910, are inclosed. It will be observed that the claim adjudicated in each of these cases grew out of collisions between a private British vessel and a public vessel owned by the United States. In the case of the Sidra, decided November 29, 1921, the Government of the United States was held liable to the British Government in the sum of £2,168/3/8 (American Journal of International Law, vol. 16, p. 110); and in the case of the Newchwang, decided December 9, 1921, the United States was held liable to the British Government in the sum of £3,176/3/6. (American Journal of International Law, vol. 16, p. 323.)

Attention may be further called to certain cases which have been adjusted through diplomatic channels without resort to arbitration. In 1885 Congress appropriated $1,973.84 to pay damages sustained to a Japanese subject as a result of a collision of a junk owned by him with the U. S. S. ASHUELOT. (Moore's Digest, Vol. VI, p. 757.)

In 1909 the Government of the United States presented to the Government of Germany a claim in behalf of the owners of the American fishing schooner Maggie and May which was sunk off the shore of Nova Scotia in 1908 by the German training cruiser Freya. The Department of State, after investigating the case, considered that there was evidence that the cruiser had not observed proper rules of navigation. The German Government responded to this claim by the payment of $19,310.52.

By an act approved February 21, 1922, Congress appropriated the sum of $872.96" to reimburse the heirs and assigns of N. Ferro, deceased, former Italian consular agent at Gulfport, Miss., for expenses incurred in repairing the damages to the Italian bark Fenice, caused by collision with the United States barge No. 15.”

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon the committee adjourned to meet again at the call of the chairman.)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Tuesday, May 13, 1924. The committee this day met, Hon. Stephen G. Porter (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We will resume the consideration of H. R. 7558, a bill providing for payment of damages on account of losses sustained by the owners of the Norwegian vessel Hassel in a collision between the Hassel and the American owned vessel Ausable. During the war our Government took over the Ausable, which was being used in the transportation of war materials. The Ausable was in a convoy and the Norwegian ship was lying at anchor in the Gironde River, near Bordeaux, France. The facts in the case are shown in the hearing of Friday, May 9. It was brought out that the Hassel was under charter at a hire of $2,000 a day.