the principle of absolute liability for the air-transport operator, subject to a right to interpose the defense of contributory negligence of the injured party, and to the right of the air-transport operator to claim a limitation of the amount of his liability as determined by the provisions of the convention.

It is understood that certain aviation insurers have expressed opposition to the convention in its present form, particularly in that they do not feel that they are prepared to insure aircraft under the terms of the convention without being permitted to interpose certain defenses against the payment of insurance claims. Foreseeing the difficulties that would arise on account of insurance, the delegates to the Third International Conference on Private Air Law, which met at Rome in May 1933, adopted a resolution requesting the International Technical Committee of Aerial Legal Experts to undertake the task of studying this insurance problem and submitting its recommendations thereon. This task was fulfilled by the committee, and its recommendations on insurance as related to the Rome convention of 1933 will be passed upon by the delegates to the Fourth International Conference on Private Air Law. The committee referred to has recommended that a limited number of defenses against the payment of insurance claims be allowed under the convention to the aviation insurer.

It will thus be seen that this insurance question is of vital interest not only to the general public but to the air-transport operators and the aviation insurers as well. It is difficult to see how it will be possible to deal adequately with this insurance question without a thorough study and review of the entire convention relating to damage caused by aircraft to persons and property on the surface, signed at Rome in 1933.

I may add that the law of liability for damages caused by aircraft to persons and property is now in an unsettled state in this country and has been given consideration by a number of interested organizations in the hope that some degree of uniformity with respect to the principles to be applied may be reached. It is suggested in this connection that the final decisions reached on questions of liability at the Fourth International Conference on Private Air Law may have an important result in influencing the development of air law in this country.

În view of the foregoing considerations, I have the honor to recommend that the Congress be requested to enact legislation authorizing an appropriation of the sum of $15,500, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the expenses of participation by the United States in the Fourth International Conference on Private Air Law to be held at Brussels, Belgium, in September 1938.

Respectfully submitted.

О

CORDELL HULL.

APRIL 5, 1938.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. McREYNOLDS, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 10085]

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 10085) to authorize the payment of an indemnity to the Norwegian Government in full and final satisfaction of all claims based on the detention and treatment of the crew of the Norwegian steamer Sagatind subsequent to the seizure of this vessel by the United States Coast Guard Cutter Seneca on October 12, 1924, having considered the same, submit the following report thereon with the recommendation that it do pass:

The facts in support of the claim presented by the Government of Norway against the United States, on account of the detention and treatment of the crew of the Norwegian steamer Sagatind, are fully set forth in a message from the President, dated March 28, 1938, and in a report to the President from the Secretary of State, dated March 26, 1938, both of which are made a part of this report, and are as follows: THE WHITE HOUSE, March 28, 1938.

To the Congress of the United States:

I enclose a report received from the Secretary of State requesting the submission to the present Congress of the claim presented by the Government of Norway against the United States on account of the detention and treatment of the crew of the Norwegian steamer Sagatind subsequent to the seizure of this vessel by the United States Coast Guard Cutter Seneca on October 12, 1924. I concur in the recommendation made by the Secretary of State and recommend that as an act of grace and without reference to the question of the legal liability of the United States of America in the matter, the Congress authorize an appropriation in the sum of $5,000 in order to effect the settlement of all claims arising with respect to the detention and treatment of the crew of the steamer Sagatind subsequent to the seizure of the vessel on October 12, 1924.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.

STATE DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 26, 1938.

The PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit, with a view to its transmission to Congress, in case you approve, the following report and recommendation concerning the claim of the Norwegian Government for reimbursement on account of the detention and treatment of the crew of the Norwegian steamer Sagalind subsequent to the seizure of that vessel by the United States Coast Guard on October 12, 1924.

The claim arose under the following circumstances: On October 12, 1924, the Norwegian steamer Sagatind, under foreign charter, with a cargo of liquor on board, was seized while lying over 22 miles from the American coast and, with the crew, was brought into the port of New York by the United States Coast Guard cutter Seneca, and anchored off Bedloes Island, where she was taken into custody by the Customs Service and a detail of customs guards under a roundsman placed on board. Libels for condemnation and forfeiture were filed by this Government in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against both the vessel and it cargo. On August 3, 1925, the court dismissed both libels (8 Fed. (2d) 788). Subsequently by decrees dated August 11 and 21, 1925, respectively, the court ordered the return of the vessel and cargo to their owners. An appeal was taken by the United States to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, on April 5, 1926, affirmed the decrees of the lower court (11 Fed. (2d) 673).

It was determined by the courts that the vessel, prior to its seizure, had not been within the United States or a collection district thereof, nor within 22 miles of the coast of this country. It was also determined that the Sagatind was not capable of making more than 10 knots per hour, and that it was not established that it had delivered liquor to any vessel capable of traversing the distance from the Sagatind to the coast within 1 hour.

The courts, while determining that there was probable cause for the seizure of the res by the persons who made the seizure, held that the seizure of the vessel and cargo was not warranted by section 3450 of the Revised Statutes or the National Prohibition Act approved October 28, 1919, or the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1922, under which the libels were filed, nor by the Convention for the Prevention of Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors between the United States and Norway, signed May 24, 1924 (43 Stat., pt. 2, 1772).

This Government decided not to appeal from the decision of the circuit court of appeals, and the vessel and cargo were thereafter released to their respective

owners.

At the time of the seizure of the Sagatind, its crew consisted of the following men: Karl Johnsen, master; Emil Sorenson, chief officer; Anton Mattisen (Mathisen), second officer; George Genaral, boatswain; Sigord Holthe, chief engineer; Gunnar Torvik, second engineer; Niels Petersen, third engineer; Christian Lindserth, steward; Hugo Anderson, wireless operator; Soerre Sorensen, donkeyman; Johann Braums, Johann Hubert, Johannas Herman, Asper Theodorsen Charles Johnsen, firemen; Ragwald Pedersen, cook; Hilding Anderson, messman; Jens Nielsen, Sverre Thle, Niels Nordgren, Reinhard Grube, Sigfred Johansen, Axel Lunden, Eric Goldsmith, sailors; Gladstone, supercargo.

Of the foregoing, the supercargo, Gladstone, after the arrival of the vessel in New York harbor, was released on bail; Eric Goldsmith, sailor, on November 10, 1924, disappeared from the office of counsel in New York where he and several other members of the crew had been taken for questioning; and Axel Lunden, sailor, having developed pneumonia, was on November 17, 1924, sent to the Norwegian Hospital, Brooklyn, N. Y.

The Sagatind with the remainder of the crew on board and under guard of customs officers lay at anchor off Bedloes Island, New York Harbor, from October 12 until November 26, 1924, on which date she was towed to pier No. 1, Army base, Brooklyn, N. Y. Upon her arrival there the remaining 22 members of the crew were taken under customs guard from the vessel to the immigration station on Ellis Island and delivered into the custody of the immigration authorities.

In the first part of December 1924 the captain, the chief officer, the second officer, and the first, second, and third engineers were released from Ellis Island under bond and returned to the Sagatind. They remained under bond until after the decision of this Government in April 1926 not to appeal from the decision of the circuit court of appeals. On December 23, 1924, the donkeyman was released from Ellis Island under bond and also returned to the Sagatind. On January 3, 1925, the remaining 14 members of the crew departed voluntarily from New York on the steamships Oscar II.

In bringing the seizure of the vessel to the attention of the Department of State in November 1924, the Norwegian Minister at Washington reserved the right of the vessel to make claim for compensation on account of the seizure. However, subsequent to the decisions of the courts in this case, the Norwegian Chargé d'Affaires ad interim informed this Department that the Norwegian Government had refused to accede to the request of the owners of the Sagatind that that Government present diplomatically a claim against the Government of the United States for compensation in the sum of 388,455.81 kroner for the seizure and detention of this vessel. He stated that although the Norwegian Government considered the seizure illegal and an invasion of Norwegian sovereign rights, its refusal to present a claim for the owner was due to the fact that "the Government resented that the Norwegian flag should cover an activity which though legal, the Government and people of Norway regarded as incompatible with the standards and traditions of our (i. e., Norwegian) merchant marine." The Norwegian Government, however, has pressed for compensation for the crew of the Sagatind, including the captain, now deceased, and the other officers. The grounds alleged for such compensation were the arrest of the crew, the detention in this country of the captain, chief officer, second officer, first, second, and third engineers and the steward, for approximately 18 months, and of other members of the crew, for 83 days, during 39 of which they were held at Ellis Island; treatment accorded the crew during detention, and, in one case, i. e., that of Anton Mathisen (Mattisen), the second officer, the severe personal injuries suffered at the hands of members of the customs guard on board the Sagatind on October 25, 1924. It was also alleged that the officers and crew suffered pecuniary losses as follows:

1. During their stay in the United States they received their stipulated wages in Norwegian kroner whereas expenses had to be paid in dollars in the United States when the price level was, at the time, considerably higher than in most European countries, and

2. Upon the removal of the officers and crew to Ellis Island on November 26, 1924, the vessel was apparently left under insufficient guard. The officers had not been given time to bring with them all their belongings and on their return to the Sagatind they found that several objects, including valuable instruments and tools had been lost.

No supporting documentary evidence was furnished with respect to either item, nor were any details supplied concerning the amount of losses referred to in item one, nor concerning the value, the names of the owners, or the precise nature of the articles referred to in item two, and consideration has not been given to these items.

The facts concerning the seizure and bringing into New York harbor of the Sagatind with the crew on board, and concerning the periods of detention of the crew, have already been set forth in this report. It may be added, however, that early in November 1924 the authorities of this Government had obtained such testimony as was considered necessary from the members of the crew and were prepared to consider their deportation. However, the Norwegian Minister protested against the anticipated deportation, stating:

"These men have been brought within the jurisdiction of the United States by force and it does not appear to me that there is any justification for demanding that they shall leave the country under the existing circumstances. Their presence will be necessary to the proper defense of the libel against the Sagatind and I feel that they should be allowed to remain in the country in order that they may be available to meet the evidence which may hereafter be given against their vessel. It will not, in any event, be adequate for the owners' protection to have these men examined out of court at the present time before it is known what testimony may be given against their vessel by subsequent witnesses."

The Minister subsequently renewed his protest against the deportation of members of the crew. It is apparent that the continued detention of these men after this Government was willing to deport them was requested by the Norwegian Minister.

With respect to the treatment of members of the crew during their detention in this country, the Norwegian Government considers that they suffered indignities in that when the Sagatind was anchored in New York Harbor on October 12, 1924, customs officers who came on board and took charge of the ship “informed the officers and crew that they were under arrest"; that after they were sent to Ellis Island "they were incarcerated together with criminals facing deportation and with persons of other races, were threatened with deportation in spite of the fact that they had been forced to enter the United States"; that they "had their mail and telegrams seized and opened"; that they "were photographed

with cards on their chests bearing their names" and that from October 12 to November 26, 1924, "the officers and crew were taken ashore from time to time where they were examined under oath. On these occasions they were escorted by armed revenue officers. On several occasions they were subjected to the humiliation of being publicly lined up in the street for the purpose of being counted to ascertain if anyone had escaped. On such occurrences they were subjected to ridicule and insulting remarks from the crowd in the street as to what they were and what they had done. They were marched through the street under armed guards like ordinary criminals. After the hearings they were escorted back to the ship still under guard and under arrest."

The Secretary of the Treasury has confirmed the statements concerning taking members of the crew of the Sagatind ashore under the escort of uniformed customs guard for examination from time to time between October 12 and November 26, 1924, but with respect to the allegation that the members of the crew were subjected to ridicule and insulting remarks from the crowd in the street, has stated that:

"During these several escorted movements of the crew they were undoubtedly observed by the public with whom they must naturally come into contact and the fact that they were in the custody of uniformed customs officers would naturally tend to attract added interest on the part of residents of New York. However, there is nothing of record, nor have the customs officers any knowledge of any indignities, physical, vocal, or otherwise, which were directed at any member or members of the crew on those occasions. On the contrary, the demeanor of private citizens in inquisitive groups was of an interested and sympathetic appearance rather than denunciatory.'

With respect to the injuries received by Anton Mathisen, the second mate of the Sagatind, at the hands of members of the customs guard on board the Sagatind on the evening of October 25, 1924, there is some conflict regarding the cause of the altercation. It was alleged on behalf of the second mate that he was endeavoring to prevent members of the guard from illegally getting possession of a part of the liquor cargo. On the other hand, however, members of the customs guard testified at a hearing regarding the incident held in New York on October 29 and 31, 1924, by the port personnel committee, that a number of bottles of liquor were found scattered around below deck, and members of the guard were ordered by the roundsman in charge to take them on deck and place them in a room amidship adjoining that of the captain; that Second Mate Mathisen attempted to prevent the bottles from being carried on deck, and that a fight ensued between him and five or six of the guards on board, with the result that he was severely beaten about the head and face and had three teeth knocked out, and, for a time, lost consciousness.

The Secretary of the Treasury in discussing the incident in a letter to this Department, in part, stated:

"Mattisen (Mathisen) was severely beaten about the head and face. At midnight his condition was such that one of the guards called the Coast Guard station at the barge office by wireless and requested medical attention for him. He was sent to the hospital where he remained for 8 days.

"Following an investigation and inquiry into the foregoing occurrence, no satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at as to whether Mathisen brought about his injury at the hands of the guards through ill-advised action indulged in by him or whether the injury sustained by him had been received as the result of actions, the inception of which had been taken by the guards themselves." None of the guards showed any signs of the conflict.

As the result of the hearing held by them on October 29 and 31, 1924, the port personnel committee recommended disciplinary action against members of the customs guard on board the Sagatind.

Anton Mathisen was confined in the Broad Street Hospital, New York City, from October 26, to November 4, 1924, when he was discharged "in an improved condition."

The Norwegian Chargé d'Affaires ad interim has informed the Department that, "Mathisen after his return to Norway has been obliged to seek medical assistance twice owing to damages done to one of his eyes during the assault and that he has been forced to abandon his living as a seaman on account of the injuries suffered."

The Norwegian Legation in its several notes to the Department set no definite sum as the amount of compensation asked. In discussing the matter with the Department the Norwegian Minister after asking a much larger amount has agreed on behalf of the Norwegian Government to accept the sum of $5,000 in full settle