surance on cargo per the Umpire, and a claim of $5,000 by Messrs. Lawson and Walker on account of Collins for cargo per the Mondamin. As to the claim by the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, although it seems almost inexplicable that it should have been presented only at the last moment, we propose to allow it, subject, however, to those remarks which we made at page 14 of this Report as to all the additional claims for cargoes. As to the claim for goods per the Moudamin, it is for cargo on board a vessel, described at page 159 of the "Revised Statement" as being in ballast, and for this reason cannot be regarded without suspicion; moreover, it is put forward at the last moment without any particulars or information to support it, and is merely presented in a letter from Messrs. Lawson and Walker, one of the two or three firms who seem to have made it their business to collect additional claims. For all these reasons the claim is one which in our opinion should be rejected. Deducting, then, 12 per cent. from the claim by the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company of $21,155, we obtain the sum of $18,623, which, for reasons stated in our First Report, we assume to represent the value of the cargo free on board, and we therefore propose that this sum of $18,623 be allowed for the claim (e) of $26,155 in respect of the cargoes. As regards the item (d) for damages, it consists of only one claim of $13,500 by the owners of the Tacony for "loss by interruption of business," a claim which must be rejected for reasons so often stated in our First Report. As regards the item (e,) for personal effects, the claims are as follows: The Sonora, p. 90.-Here are claims amounting to $5,471 by the Master and Mate for loss of effects, time, passage, and expenses, no such claim having been made in the "Former Statement." For reasons stated in our First Report the only claim which can be taken into account is that for loss of personal effects, and we consider that for this loss a sum of $1,000, viz, $700 for the Master and $300 for the Mate, will give adequate compensation. The Mondamin, p. 188.-Here a new claim is advanced by Dillingham for $1,143 for loss of personal effects, &c., but as the vessel was in ballast, and the Master and Mate make no claim for personal effects, and there is no description given of the claimant, and no information as to whether he was a passenger or a seaman, we think this claim ought not to be allowed. The Harvey Birch, p. 220.-Here there is an additional claim by the Captain of $1,047. In our First Report (p. 28) we allowed the sum of $3,500 for loss of personal effects on board this vessel, and as we consider this allowance amply sufficient to cover all such losses, we think this claim should be rejected. The Delphine, p. 234.-Here the Mate claims $825, but as in our First Report (p. 28) we allowed the liberal sum of $3,090 for loss of personal effects in respect of this vessel of 705 tons, we think this further claim should be disallowed. The Tacony, p. 206.-Here Doherty at the last moment makes a new claim of $772 for loss of personal effects. Here again, as no description is given of the claimant, and as it is not known whether he was a passenger, common seaman, or officer, we think that a claim of this vague kind, presented only at the last moment, ought not to be assumed to be a claim other than by a seaman, and we allow $80. We therefore propose that for the claim (e) of $9,258 for personal effects there should be allowed $1,080. The result at which we have arrived with reference to the claims in Class D may be exhibited in the following form: In the "Former Statement" the claims comprised in this class are. $296, 835 2,530 504,481 So that the total amount of the additional claims in the "Revised Statement" is.... 207,646 $21,088 As regards item (a,) for vessels and insurances, it consists of: New Claims, i. e., claims for vessels not comprised in "Former Statement" Further Claims, i. e., fresh claims for vessels comprised in "Former Statement ".. 138,089 The New Claims for vessels are as follows: 1. The M. Y. Davis, p. 185.-The claim for vessel is $16,100. Her tonnage and class are not given, nor is it stated where or when she was captured, or on what voyage she was bound, and as this claim was not presented until the 15th March last, and was then presented by Messrs. Lawson & Walker, (the firm already referred to,) without any material information or particulars being given, and apparently without being supported by any affidavit of the owner, or other proper evidentiary document, we think it should be rejected. 2. The Joseph Maxwell, p. 269.-This ship, the tonnage of which is not given, is represented to have been captured by the Sumter and ran ashore, to have been afterwards got off and taken into the port of Cienfuegos, and to have been there sold with her cargo by order of the Court of Admiralty. The claim for the vessel is $4,988, advanced by an insurance company, for insurances on her. It may well be that the events above described constituted a constructive total loss, and obliged the insurance company to pay the amount insured, but in such case the property would, by abandonment, pass to them, and as they have not given credit for its proceeds, nor supplied any particulars to show that it was substantially depreciated by any injury directly sustained by reason of the capture, we are of opinion that this claim ought not to be allowed. The Further Claims for vessels are as follows: 1. The Corriss Ann, (p. 147,) of 568 tons.-On referring to our First Report (p. 30) it will be found that there was only a claim of $1,000 for freight and no claim for the vessel. In the "Revised Statement" there is a claim of $20,000 for the vessel, and as we do not consider it excessive, considering her tonnage, we propose to allow it. The General Berry, p. 172.-This vessel, the tonnage of which is not given, is described as having been in the United States Service when destroyed. It appears from the synopsis of the list of papers appended to the Statement that a claim of $16,000 was presented to the United States Senate for the loss of this vessel. If this amount had been paid, the present claim is, in fact, one presented on behalf of the United States Government in respect of a vessel in its service; but, whether this be or be not so, it seems to us at any rate certain that under the circumstances more than $16,000 cannot be fairly demanded, and we, therefore, propose only to allow that sum. 3. The George Latimer, (p. 173,) of 200 tons.-Here there is a claim. of $10,434. In the "Former Statement" there was a claim only of $1,600 for the vessel, which we allowed, as her tonnage was not given. (See page 30 of First Report.) Being now informed of her tonnage, and valuing her at our average rate, we think there should be an additional allowance of $7,000. 4. The Byzantium, (p. 208,) of 1,050 tons.-It will be found at page 30 of our First Report, that, as no claim was made for the value of the ship in the "Former Statement," we inferred that she had been probably insured and paid for by English underwriters, but as a claim is now advanced for ship and freight of $50,787, of which we ascribe $45,000 to ship and $5,787 to freight, we propose to allow for the vessel, at the rate of $40 per ton, (though with very considerable doubt,) the sum of $42,000. 5. The Daniel Trowbridge, (p. 267,) of 185 tons.-In the "Former Statement" there was no account given of her tonnage, nor of what had been done with her. In the "Revised Statement" she is said to have been destroyed on the 22d October, 1861, and there is a claim of $8,500 for vessel, and of $7,394 for cargo and outfit, of which latter sum we put $5,000 down to cargo, and $2,394 to outfit. As it seems almost inexplicable that a loss which occurred at so early a period should not have been claimed for until the 15th March last, unless the owners had received compensation, and as there is no claim by American insurance companies, it is only with very considerable hesitation that we propose to allow for the value of ship and outfit, in proportion to her tonnage, the sum of $7,500. 6. The Eben Dodge, p. 268.-In our First Report (p. 30) we allowed the only claim contained in the "Former Statement," viz, the sum of $2,250, which was claimed by an insurance company. In the "Revised Statement" there is now a very heavy claim for vessel, outfit, and general earnings, showing her to have been a whaler. It appears, from the account given of her by Captain Semmes, that she was probably a vessel of about 250 tons, and that, when she was captured, she was leaking badly, and had no cargo on board. As we have already allowed $2,500, we have no doubt that we shall be giving ample compensation by making an additional allowance of $20,000. The result of this analysis is, that for the additional claim (a) of $150,177 for vessels and insurances thereon, we propose that there should be made an allowance of $112,500. As regards item (b) for freights, this consists of three claims: 1. The Harriet Stevens, p. 179.-It will be found, at page 30 of our First Report, that we have made an allowance in lieu of freight, and we do not think that the additional claim calls for any additional allowance. 2. The Byzantium, p. 208.-Here there is a claim for ship and freight of which, as already mentioned, we put down $5,787 to freight. Instead of this claim we propose to make, according to the principle stated in our First Report, an allowance of $4,000. 3. The Eben Dodge, p. 268.-Here there is a very large claim for prospective earnings. As she had only been twelve days on her voyage, we think that $1,000 will be an adequate allowance, in accordance with the principle stated in our First Report, which led us to reject the claims for prospective earnings. We prefer, therefore, that for this claim (b) there be made an allow ance of $5,000. As regards item (c) for cargoes, this is made up of the following claims: 1. The Ariel, p. 23.-Here there is a claim of $78, which, though small, must, in our opinion, be rejected in accordance with the observations which we made at page 29 of our First Report. 2. The Corriss Ann, p. 157.-Here there is a claim of $4,400, which we propose to allow, because it is an insurance claim, although the fact of its being presented at so late a period makes it open to considerable suspicion. 3. The Joseph Parks, p. 269.-Here there is an insurance claim of $3,000, which we propose to allow for the same reason, but also with the same observation as before. 4. The Neapolitan, p. 270.-Here there is again an insurance claim for $8,986. This we also propose to allow. 5. The Joseph Maxwell, p. 269.-Here there is a claim of $2,006 for cargo, which, in our opinion, ought to be rejected for exactly the same reasons as have been already stated for the disallowance of the claim for the vessel. 6. The Daniel Trowbridge, p. 267.-We have already mentioned that we ascribe $5,000, part of the claim advanced in respect of this vessel, to cargo, and we propose to allow it, although not without much doubt. especially on account of there being a combined claim for cargo and outfit, of which it is impossible to know how much, if any, should be ascribed to cargo. These allowances, in respect of the additional claims for cargo, amount to $21,186, and, deducting as usual 12 per cent., we propose that there should be made an allowance of $18,654 in respect of the item (c) of $23,270 for cargo. As regards item (e) for personal effects, it consists of the following claims: 1. The General Berry, p. 172.-Here the Master and Chief officer claim $1,267 for loss of personal effects. We think that $700 will be adequate compensation, viz, $500 for the former and $200 for the latter. 2. The Daniel Trowbridge, p. 267.-Here the Master claims $1,572, although in the "Former Statement" he claimed the extravagant sum of $7,645. In our First Report (p. 30) we made him an allowance of $1,000, and see no reason to increase it. 3. The A. G. Bird, p. 275.-Here there is a claim of $300 by the officers, for loss of personal effects, which we propose to allow. 4. The M. Y. Davis, p. 185.-For the same reasons which led us to reject the new claim for this vessel, we propose that this claim, which is likewise presented by Messrs. Lawson and Walker, should be disallowed. We therefore think that for the claim (e) of $4,043, for loss of personal effects, there should be allowed $1,000. The result at which we have arrived, in reference to this class, may therefore be exhibited in the following form: The following table exhibits the results we have arrived at as above mentioned in respect of the Additional Claims, contained in the Revised Statement arranged (X) according to Claims, (Y) according to Interests, (Z) according to the Cruisers. Before proceeding to combine the foregoing allowances with those made in our First Report, so as to arrive at the allowance in respect of all the claims contained in the "Revised Statement," it will be necessary to draw attention to some alterations which should be made from the former allowances; partly on account of the withdrawal of some of the claims contained in the "Former Statement," and partly on account of some corrections the propriety of which further investigation has led us to make. It was stated, at p. 5 of the Present Report, that the claims in respect to four bonded whalers, amounting to $208,996, have now been withdrawn, and that three other claims, for vessels and freights, have been reduced by (altogether) the sum of $91,450. The last three reductions, it is to be observed, do not give rise to any diminution of our former allowances, because these were based on our average estimate of |