178 CASES OF THE PEARL, LORIOT, AND HARRIET. 



surancewill show that the loss on the voyage of the Pearl is not one 

 for which insurers are ever liable — it is the loss of a market. Had the 

 commander of the Pearl, disregarding the warning of the Enssian 

 authorities, remained on the iSTorthwest Coast, and th.e vessel been cap- 

 tured and confiscated, then the underwriters would have been liable, 

 and the loss would have been paid. 



To the assertion that we " have recently offered to dispose of our 

 whole stock in the northwest trade, at an advance of only 7 per cent on 

 the original cost," it might be a sufficient reply to state, in the most 

 explicit terms, that no such offer was ever made, or authorized, by us ; 

 but, in corroboration, we adduce the fact that, from the year 1815 to 

 the present time, we have annually fitted out one or more vessels for 

 the northwest trade, and that except in one case, where the vessel was 

 totally lost by shipwreck, no voyage of ours has terminated with less 

 than 50 per cent profit, and in several instances more than 90 x^er cent 

 has been realized by us. The prospect for some of our vessels now on 

 the NforthJ W[est] Coast is so flattering that we doubt not but that more 

 than 50 per cent could not be obtained on the first cost of vessels and 

 cargoes. There was a time when we should, perhaps, have been dis- 

 posed to have sold our interest in this trade at less than the original 

 cost. It was when we apprehended that the interference of the Rus- 

 sian authorities might occasion the same ruinous consequences in other 

 cases, as in the case of the Pearl. 



The misconduct of the master of the Pearl, for which he was held 

 accountable on his return, had no relation to the question here at issue. 

 He was prosecuted for some petty acts of dishonesty and for a viola- 

 tion of his contract with the owners in regard to private trade at the 

 Sandwich Islands and elsewhere. 



In the statement which we made some time since to the Department 

 of State relative to our claim, all the facts within our knowledge were 

 set forth, and the estimates then made were just and reasonable. We 

 are extremely solicitous to have the business brought to a close — all we 

 ask is to be indemnified by the Eussian Government for the loss actu- 

 ally sustained in consequence of the interference of their officers with 

 our lawful pursuits. 



Bryant & Sturgis. 



Mr. Middleton to Mr. Adams. 



St. Petersburg, April 23-May 5, 1824. 

 Sir : At the moment of signing the Convention of 17-5th April, I 

 felt it to be my duty to remind Count Nesselrode of the claim I had 

 made on account of the interruption of the voyage of the brig Pearl. 

 I urged to him the necessity of making compensation in a case the 

 principle of which might be now considered as settled in our favor. I 

 argued that their consenting to treat with us respecting limits upon 

 that coast, and abandoning in part their pretensions, proves that they 

 hold no sovereignty over it. The act, then, of their officer in arresting 

 a lawful voyage was arbitrary, and just indemnity is due for losses 

 thereupon consequent. After slightly touching such further topics as 

 I thought likely to produce the effect I wished, I put into his hand, 

 as a memorandum of our conversation, the note verbale of which a 

 copy (ISTo. 1) accompanies this. He read it, and requested that I would 

 again furnish him with the documents I had formerly sent him relating 



