63 Opinion of the Court arrived in ports in the United States during the year 1918, when the United States was at war with the German and Austro-Hungarian governments. Although Finland had declared her independence from Russia in 1917, all the vessels were sailing under the Russian flag when they arrived in this country. The United States, acting through its War Trade Board and the Shipping Board, detained them for varying periods of time between March 18 and November 26, 1918, by refusing to grant bunker licenses for ship's stores and, in some instances, export cargo licenses, without which the ships could not sail. We previously held and here hold that the defendant was acting properly and within its legal rights. The action of the War Trade Board in refusing to grant these licenses was due to (a) the probability of the vessels proceeding through the war danger zone, and the possible seizure of the vessels and their cargoes and stores by the enemy, (b) the uncertainty of the political situation in Russia and Finland, and (c) the character and responsibility of the officers and crews of the vessels. After the vessels had been delayed for varying periods of time, as shown in the tabulation hereinafter set forth, it was determined that the suspicions concerning the officers and crews were unfounded, and the vessels were finally granted the necessary licenses and permitted to sail. The investigation of the loyalty, character and responsibility of the officers and crews was a delicate matter and was postponed until all other phases of the matter of sailing were disposed of. The legal questions involved in these claims were originally considered by this court pursuant to the above-mentioned Act of Congress approved June 29, 1936 (49 Stat. 2368), which conferred jurisdiction upon the court. The parties were allowed, as hereinbefore stated, to submit unlimited proof and the legal rights of the plaintiffs were fully and carefully considered and adjudicated. The first claim to be considered concerned the detention of the vessel Albyn and was decided in J. A. Zachariassen & Co. v. United States, 94 C. Cls. 315, cert. denied, 315 U. S. 815, in which case on the findings and opinion it was held that the detention was not unlawful and that the plaintiff Opinion of the Court 136 C. Cls. in that case was not legally entitled to recover. The remaining claims were dismissed in a per curiam opinion reported at 96 C. Cls. 127, upon the authority of the findings of fact and opinion in the Zachariassen case. For reasons stated in the original Zachariassen opinion, which is transmitted to the Senate with this opinion, it is our view that none of the plaintiffs have legal claims against the United States. No new evidence on the merits has been presented and the question of defendant's legal liability is res adjudicata by reason of the Zachariassen case and the related decision (96 C. Cls. 127) dealing with the other claims. However, in a Congressional reference such as this, the court will further consider the equitable side of the claims even though the legal questions have been disposed of previously. Bertha A. Burkhardt, et al. v. United States, 113 C. Cls. 115 and 658. The commissioner of the court in the present proceedings has found that no additional material evidence on the question of liability, either legal or equitable, has been offered by the parties although they have been given full opportunity to do so. After scrutinizing the record we are in agreement with the commissioner's conclusion. Therefore, we have again examined the evidence offered in the earlier proceedings to determine whether the plaintiffs have equitable claims against the defendant of such character as would entitle them to payment of compensation by Congress other than as a gratuity. In support of their position that they have equitable claims, (they apparently use "equity" in its broadest sense), the plaintiffs contend that the detention of the vessels was due to unfounded suspicions of the officers and crews and that the vessels were actually detained for the purpose of compelling the owners to charter them to the United States. While it is true that the suspicions concerning the crews ultimately proved unfounded, it appears that there were reasonable grounds for such suspicions during the period when the vessels were detained. That suspicion had been suggested by the agent of plaintiffs. This country was at war with Germany and her allies. The political situation in Russia at that time was very unstable. Finland had been a part of 63 Opinion of the Court Russia for many years prior to 1917. It declared its independence from Russia in 1917, but neither the Russian nor Finnish governments had been recognized by the United States at the time the ships were detained. Furthermore, all the vessels were sailing under the Russian flag when they arrived in United States ports. In view of the unsettled political situation, we feel that it was not only reasonable but prudent as well for the United States officials to question the reliability and the political affiliations of the crews since it would have been very detrimental to the United States if the vessels and their cargoes and stores had fallen into the hands of her enemies. Since reasonable grounds for the suspicions existed at the time the vessels were detained, we do not feel that plaintiffs are equitably entitled to recover merely because such suspicions ultimately proved unfounded. The matter of chartering the vessels was primarily for their safety on the voyages and when those negotiations terminated the crews were promptly investigated. It is also our opinion that there is no merit in plaintiffs' allegation that the vessels were actually detained for the purpose of compelling the owners to charter them to the United States. The evidence does not support this contention. In the special findings of the court in the original Zachariassen case the facts and circumstances which formed the basis for withholding the bunker licenses were stated to be (a) the possibility of the seizure of the vessels by the enemy and the appropriation of their cargoes and stores, (b) the uncertainty of the political situation in Russia and Finland and, (c) the character and responsibility of the officers and crews. No new evidence has been presented which would cause the court to reach a different conclusion as to the reasons for the withholding of the licenses which would have enabled the vessels to sail. Plaintiffs further urge that they are equitably entitled to recover because of the delay in the investigation of the officers and crews of the vessels. It appears that approximately three months elapsed between the time the matter first came to the attention of the War Trade Board and the time the investigation was conducted and concluded by Naval Conclusion 136 C. Cls. Intelligence. While such delays are unfortunate, we believe, in the circumstances of these cases, that they are inevitable in time of war, and we cannot accept the view of plaintiffs that the United States is equitably and morally obligated to compensate them for losses caused by such delays unless the delays are clearly unreasonable or without cause. The present case does not, in our opinion, fall within the exception of unreasonableness. A situation which was potentially dangerous to the United States had arisen and the question of how to protect the interests of the Nation as to cargoes and supplies was being carefully considered by various Government agencies. When it was finally decided that an investigation of the loyalty, character and responsibility of the crews should be conducted, it was promptly instituted and concluded. It is our opinion that the mere fact that it was not immediately determined that an investigation of the crews was the proper course of action, does not make the delay unreasonable or without cause. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they were treated differently than others who suffered delays because of wartime conditions. We have carefully considered plaintiffs' other contentions regarding equitable relief and have found them to be without substance. We are, therefore, of the opinion from the record, that in view of all the facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs have no basis for equitable claims against the United States. CONCLUSION It is the conclusion of the court that the plaintiffs have no legal or equitable claims against the United States for reasons set out in the findings and the opinion of the court in these cases as well as in the Zachariassen case, supra. We further conclude that no amount is legally or equitably due from the United States to the claimants and that any amount or amounts that might be awarded by Congress, in its discretion, to any of the claimants, will be in the nature of a gratuity. 63 Conclusion In view of our conclusion concerning legal and equitable liability, the question of compensation or damages has not been discussed in the opinion herein. However, when these same claims were originally before the court and considered under the Act of Congress of June 29, 1936, former Commissioner C. W. Ramseyer of this court made findings and considered the matter of damages in each case, and filed a report with the court in each case, on December 13, 1939. For convenience, the following table sets forth the name of the present case and its number, the name of the corresponding prior case and its number, and the name of the vessel or vessels involved in each: All reports of former Commissioner Ramseyer, with the exception of the original copy in the United States Archives, have been destroyed. In order to save the heavy cost of printing, those reports are not reproduced herein. It is presumed that plaintiffs' counsel has copies. However, since, as we have hereinbefore stated, all the basic essential facts as to the detention of the several vessels were the same, except as to tonnage, prepaid freight, period of delay, wages and maintenance of the crews during the delay periods, we set forth below a tabulation* containing 10 columns, the first 8 of which contain the findings of Commissioner Ramseyer as *See table, p. 73. |