the 4th rule above mentioned and provided in the common law. Without these requisites no testimony is worthy of credit, if the same be the only proof produced and in relation to facts.

In the first place, the declaration of Deffendini disappears, for in the ratification at folio 14 he assigns, as the reason for his statement, public notoriety.

Then the declarations of Sotillo, the two Carvajal, Barboa, and Elias Castillo, also disappear, because neither the first, at folios 4, 5, and 23, 24, nor the two second, at folios 5, 6, and 9, 10, and 18 and 21, nor the fourth, at folios 19, 20, and 22, 23 have assigned the reason why they were aware that the belligerent forces at that time had taken the animals alluded to.

And the said declarations of the two Carvajal, Barboa, and Elias Castillo also disappear, as well as those of Colon and Miguel Castillo, for the following reason. All six have affirmed, under oath, as to the contents of the above-mentioned second and third particulars of the interrogatory having reference to the existence, in 1859, of a stated number of each of the eight kinds of animals, and specifying the ages and their respective value, and notwithstanding in the acts of ratification, after the same had been carried into effect under oath, they overlook the testimony they had rendered, and one after another wander in their statements and form arbitrary calculations respecting the number of each kind and the age of the animals, as well as respecting their value. This alone, and without the necessity of entering into other observtionss of great importance, are sufficient to make us place no faith in the said depositions. I in no manner wish to asperse the good reputation of the witnesses whom I have not the honour of knowing; I am occupied in examining the legal force of their depositions in dilucidation of the facts, out of which Mr. Gioseppi deduces his right.

No other declaration or proof remains pending.

Truly, personal evidence, in this class of demands against the Public Treasury, called "claims," amongst which the international have attained celebrity, ought to be proscribed. Personal evidence, so discredited in jurisprudence, has as its preventive more or less efficacious, but the only one, the individual interest of him against whom it is produced in a suit, through the protection of the forms of proceeding against the witnesses, because of their absolute or relative legal inability to declare, or against their depositions because wanting in truth in matters of a more or less serious character. This being the case, who may not measure the extent of the breach which this kind of proof, when not in a regular suit, has opened in the vault of the Public Treasury? And who does not know that the Fisc, with all the theory of its privileges and prerogatives, is the most helpless of orphans, and against whom there are in general greater facilities to attack with less probabilities of resistance?

Independently of the law on Public Credit above-mentioned, which prescribes certain forms for the substantiating of claims against the nation, the same having reference to the war during the stated period between the 20th February, 1859, and the 24th July, 1863, there cannot be any other efficacious obligation against Venezuela in reference to losses occasioned by the belligerent parties, but such as arise out of judicial sentences carried into execution, or of agreements of a definite character entered into by the Republic; nor are there any other motives left for diplomatic intervention but notorious injustice or the denial of justice in conformity with International Law.

I

I do not find myself in a position to make any appreciation with respect to the documents ("expediente") of the claim of Mr. Giuseppi. The witness, who is unworthy of credit in one respect ("diez ") is likewise so in others ("cieu "), and vice versa. have no basis whatever upon which to proceed, and I cannot establish it arbitrarily. Mr. Giuseppi may have been unfortunate in his proofs; but I cannot, based upon them, assign any merit to his claim.

I therefore opine that the documents ("expediente ") of the claim under consideration be declared to be deficient in any merits whatever for the fixing of any amount. And here I must also remark that not only owing to the peremptory terms of the 3rd Article already alluded to of the Decree of the 1st of July of 1865, but that the Diplomatic Convention, also already alluded to, refers to "pending claims" (at the date of the same and as they were presented to the Commission), the formalizing of new proofs in order that the present Commission should again consider the case cannot take place.

With, &c. (Signed)

JUAN DE D. MENDEZ,

[193]

Commissioner for Venezuela.

I

Mr. John Giuseppi.

Judgment of Mr. Joel, British Commissioner.

THIS is a claim for the value of 165 mares, 89 horses, 60 colts, and 45 fillies of three years old, and 49 colts and 55 fillies of two years old; and 49 colts and 30 fillies of one year old, the property of Mr. John Giuseppi, taken from the estate called El Roble in the State of Barcelona, by the forces of the two contending parties during the war of the Federation.

Eight, apparently disinterested witnesses, concur in their declarations in regard to the seizure of these animals by the forces of the two contending parties, and the direct evidence of these witnesses is in no way impaired by their subsequent cross-examination by the Fiscal. On distant estates, in a country so vast and so sparsely populated as Venezuela, there must exist at all times more or less difficulty in proving losses of this character, but in this particular case the proofs of loss are abundant, and I am, therefore, of opinion that the only question for the consideration of the Arbitrator is the value of these animals at the time they were taken from the estate El Roble without the consent or contrivance of their owner John Giuseppi.

Mr. John Giuseppi.

Judgment of Señor Mora, Umpire.

Caracas, September 2, 1869.

ON view of the two letters from Mr. John Giuseppi under date of the 15th February last, past to Generals Baltazar Rendon and Fermin Carreño, with the answers of these gentlemen (that of the latter on the 23rd of the said month) respectively attached to each of those letters, which letters were delivered to me by yourself and your fellow Commissioner on the 23rd March last, a few days after the delivery of my first award (dated 17th March), and on the strength of further information obtained by me from other sources, I now deliver this my definite and final award, to the effect, that the Government of Venezuela is bound to pay to Mr. John Giuseppi the sum of 24,375 dollars say 24,375 dollars, of our currency, in full for his claim herein considered.

You will be pleased to bear in mind that in consequence of the Commission not having agreed upon my first and conciliatory award of the 17th March last past, previously alluded to, it became necessary for me to seek further information upon which to form a definite judgment of the case, seeing that the conflict of opinion between the Commissioners could not otherwise be reconciled. I desired among other sources of such further information, although not the most material one, to have conferred with Mr. Giuseppi himself, who was at the time absent at Barcelona, but expected to return by each succeeding monthly steamer. He has not, however, returned, and as I have been enabled in the meantime to come to a conclusion perfectly satisfactory to my own mind, independently of any light I could have derived from Mr. Giuseppi, I have deemed it expedient to close the case without further delay, as I do by these presents, leaving this explanation on record.

(Signed)

GUILLO. YRIBARREN MORA,

Umpire.

(Translation.)

Mr. Joseph Jelleret.

Judgment of Dr. Mendez, Venezuelan Commissioner.

MR. JOSEPH JELLERET claims 60,333 dollars, amount of a liquidation which he presents (folio 18) for capital, and interest at 9 per cent. per annum made up to the 1st of July last, and which refers to an order dated July 1st, 1863, issued by the Government of Maturin (folio 14) against the Custom-house of that city for the sum of 39,952 dollars for cattle taken from Mr. Jelleret for the public service.

There does not exist in the record ("expediente") any data or foundation whatever to believe that documents that therein appear as proofs that a quantity of cattle to the number of 418head (folios 3, 4, 5, 6) taken from Jelleret, form part of the proofs in respect to the 518 head of cattle for which Jelleret was paid by the above-mentioned order.

The origin of the credit arising out of this order may then have sprung from transactions respecting other cattle of the stock estate "Corcobado;" and this is, of itself, a conclusive reason why the Umpire cannot enter upon appreciations or judgments as regards the nature of the credit in its origin, and that he should confine himself, as the interested party himself expressly requests, and as is natural and proper, to the consideration of the value of the order as merely a credit on a Custom-house.

I cannot, therefore, but object in the most formal manner that the Umpire should take under consideration those documents for the formation of his opinion. The said documents may very possibly have reference to another credit, in every way distinct from that which gave rise to the order in question; and in such case it does not appear that they have been ratified in the presence of a legitimate representative of the nation, in conformity with the rules of the law of the 16th of June, 1865, on Public Credit (Rule 4, Art. 28) in respect to losses in relation to the war of the Federation, between the dates of the 20th of February, 1859, and the 24th of July, 1863, as determined by the said law. And for this reason I must here assert that I have not considered myself, nor do I consider myself, obliged to come to a resolution on records ("expedientes") which labour under that substantial informality; that neither have I considered myself, nor do I consider myself, obliged to submit this point to the decision of the Umpire; for, basing my judgments on the terms of the Convention of the 21st of September, 1868, which created the Commission, I would implicitly authorize the Umpire to interpret the Convention-a matter which can only be resolved by the contracting parties; and lastly, that my opinions, in respect to both points, have received the approval of my Government.

And really had these documents been properly discussed on their ratification before the Fiscal Agent, it would easily have been shown what, as regards myself, is indubitable, that if the delivery of those 418 head of cattle, accepting as authentic the documents in reference thereto, it was caused by a loan or spontaneous sale entered into by Jelleret.

The receipt for 75 head of cattle, which appears to have been given under date of the 19th of May, 1863, by the Governor and by the Chief of Operations of Maturin (folio 6) is very clear, and no less clear are the two orders which appear to have been given by the said Chief of Operations on the 28th of the same May, and on the 3rd of June following (folios 1 and 2); for in the former it is stated "whether it be through the authorization which the said (Jelleret) has given," and in the latter, "Or be it by the authorization held by this superior authority." And certainly it is not to be alleged that those authorities made out the orders as best suited them; for, with such a plea, if it were to be received under the simple word of any one who presents a bond or a document on which he bases a right against another party, there would be no other law than the word of the plaintiff against the defendant. Nor is it to be alleged that Jelleret extended protests in respect to despoliation on the 2nd and 7th of June (folios 7 and 11), for the said protests not having been notified to the authorities, nor even published that the said authorities might be in position to refute them, are no more than valueless papers, which rather are presumable to have been formalities, with the object of appealing to the diplomatic course in the event of a failure of the speculation.

Let us now look into the credit, which is really what has been claimed. It consists of the order of which we have already spoken, issued by the President of the State of Maturin, in virtue of a proposal made by Jelleret, regarding terms of payment.

We must leave aside entirely the origin of this debt, because it is only the debt itself which has to be considered. That origin, just or unjust in respect to the nation, disappeared from the moment that the debt was recognized and paid by the order in question. Therefore, there is nothing to be verified except the fact of that order not having been paid, having under consideration the terms in which it was extended, and the rights of the nation. "Let there be placed (says the order) to the credit of Joseph Jelleret, for the motives expressed in this note, by the Custom-house of the Port of Maturin, the sum of 39,952 dollars, together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum.'

This alone is sufficient to comprehend that, in addition to the fact that the credit no longer existed in relation to its origin (the cattle was paid for by the order at a higher price than 60 dollars a-head), Jelleret having asked for the order because the payment in that manner was convenient to him, and he having received on account of its value the I 2

[193]

sum of 400 dollars, as is shown by the liquidation he presents, his rights fell under the sanction of the legal regulations in regard to public credit, and, consequently, in this case there can be no diplomatic intervention. To this there can be no reply.

But there is still more: "Let the payment (continues the order) of the said sum be made from the 50 per cent. of the export and import duties of that Custom-house, provided there be no other superior order, which must be obeyed.”

It is, evident, therefore, that Jelleret, on accepting the above-mentioned order in those terms, expressly accepted every interruption, and every modification in its payment arising out of superior orders to which he had to submit. And as the principal of such orders was the law of the Sovereign upon liquidation and payment of its debt, it is equally beyond reply that Jelleret, through his own expressed desire, runs likewise the risk of every creditor for orders against the Custom-houses, in conformity with the law of the 16th of June, 1865.

If to all this be added that no one can to-day declare, by the papers of the record ("expediante") whether the said order has or not been paid, since no official liquidation, taken from the books of the Custom-house of Maturin has been presented, nor do we find any more information than that given by the interested party wherein he makes his so-called credit, amount to an enormous sum by means of annual capitalization of interest, can it be pretended to compel the nation to pay Jelleret (without his having any other title, or justification, than the fact of his being a British subject, and of having been British Vice-Consul at Maturin when he got the order) on such a strange demand?

The Umpire, whom I have the honour to address, must disallow this claim, destitute as it is of every right. In my opinion, Sir, the very discussion of this subject is scandalous. Under equal rights to those upheld by Jelleret, and under similar ways of proceeding, the regulations in regard to Public Credit would be reduced to nullity as respects a foreigner in Venezuela; and, indeed, I do not know how it could be avoided that the stream of foreign credits on the Custom-houses and other national offices, should not immediately inundate the Legations, and excite new complications for the Republic.

Mr. Joseph Jelleret.

Judgment of Mr. Joel, British Commissioner.

THE claimant, Mr. Joseph Jelleret, British Vice-Consul at Maturin, possessed an estate ("erato") in that province, on which he bred and fattened cattle for exportation to the Island of Trinidad.

On the 28th of May, 1863, the Colonel-in-chief of military operations in that province, Señor Manuel B. Fonseca issued an order (the wording of which merits attention), to take 200 head of cattle from the "erato" of Mr. Jelleret. A memorandum of the accomplishment of this outrage, by the persons named in the order, is amongst the and is marked A. 3.

papers,

On the 3rd of June of the same year the Colonel-in-chief issued another order to Lieutenant Guzman to proceed to the estate (" erato") of Mr. Jelleret, and to remove ("sacar") all the cattle, without exception, there to be found; and a memorandum of the accomplishment of this further outrge, marked A. 3, signed by the said Lieutenant Guzman, in which he states that, in obedience to the order of Colonel Manuel B. Fonseca, he took from the estate of Mr. Jelleret 103 head of cattle, is also among the papers.

Another memorandum of a further outrage of the same nature is also transmitted, marked A. 3, in which the Commandant Gosé M. Ledesma states that he took, on the 18th of June, 1863, from the estate of Mr. Jelleret, forty head of cattle by the order of the Chief of military operations of the province.

Anterior to the date of these outrages Mr. Jelleret, at the request of the Gobernador of the province and of Colonel Fonseca, loaned them seventy head of cattle, which they were to repay with the first arrival of cattle from the "Tigre." The result of this act of kindness was the outrages above described.

On the 2nd of June, 1863, Mr. Jelleret extended a formal protest against the outrage committed upon his property three days previously, and on the 7th of June he again formally protested against the further outrage.

On the 1st July, 1863, Mr. Jelleret presented a request to the Gobernador of the province to be paid the value of the cattle taken from him, by an appropriation of 50 per cent. of the import duties of the Custom-house at Maturin, and that he should be

credited in the books of the Custom-house with the value of the cattle; namely, 39,952 dollars, which request was acceded to, and during that month 400 dollars on account were paid to him; since which period no further payment has been made, and he now claims the sum of 39,552 dollars, with interest from the 1st of July, 1863.

The recurrence of outrages, similar to that perpetrated on the property of Mr. Jelleret, is, unfortunately, not unfrequent in this Republic, and compensation after the lapse of years, when ruin, as in this case, has in consequence fallen upon the victim, is but a poor reparation. The outrage in Mr. Jelleret's case is aggravated from the fact of his being invested with the character of a Consul of a friendly nation.

I am of opinion that the Umpire should award the amount claimed, with a moderate rate of interest from the 1st of July, 1863, until the same be paid.

(Translation.)

Mr. Joseph Jelleret.
Judgment of M. Stürup, Umpire.

Caracas, September 15, 1869.

MESSRS. the Members of the Mixed Commission charged with the adjustment of the British claims.

I have received the collection of documents ("expediente") in support of the claim of Mr. Joseph Jelleret, a resident of Maturin, which you have transmitted to me in order that I should give my decision thereon, as the Arbitrator or Umpire; and having, with all due attention, made myself acquainted with the said documents, and having in consideration the Report of the Commission on the subject, I proceed to reply to you in the following terms:

From the said documents results,

1st. That the military authority of the State of Maturin, in May and June of 1863, disposed of 580 head of cattle belonging to the British subject, Mr. Joseph Jelleret, and that they were taken away against his will and in the most arbitrary manner from his cattle estate" corcobado;" for although 75 of the above-mentioned number of head of cattle were voluntarily delivered, it was under the condition of their being returned to him in kind, which was not done, although on several occasions there were the means of doing And

so.

2nd. That the President of the said State, acknowledging the justice of the claim, issued on the 1st of July of the same year an order to the Custom House of Maturin to place to the credit of Mr. Joseph Jelleret the sum of 39,952 dollars, with the addition of interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum, in liquidation of the value of his cattle, the payment to be made with the 50 per cent. of the import and export duties collected at that Custom-house.

Now, then, in reference to the observations of the Commission, I beg to state that the stipulation contained in the above-mentioned order, respecting any superior disposition altering what is therein provided, can but refer to the manner of making the payment, and in no way to diminish the obligation of carrying it into effect, since the debt remained formally recognized; that if the said order did not, circumstantially and in detail, express the particulars of the origin of the claim, that was no fault of the interested party, but of the authority who issued the order; and, finally, that the formalities established for such cases by the Law of the 16th of June of 1865, could not well be observed in July of 1863, said law having been issued two years later.

The definite orders of the Military Chief of Maturin, dated the 28th May and 3rd of June of the above-mentioned year, that the cattle should be delivered by the overseer of Mr. Jelleret's cattle estate, and even that his officers commissioned for the purpose should take the same by force in case of resistance, exclude all ideas that the delivery was voluntary; and although, in virtue of these orders and according to receipts which appear amongst the documents, only 303 head of cattle were taken, it is to be supposed that the remainder, to make up the full amonnt of 580, were also taken away by force. The authorization which the Military Chief said he had so to act, could only have refe rence to his unlimited power and in no manner to an agreement entered into with Jelleret, for in this case the said agreement ought to have been mentioned, as would indu bitably have been the case had the same existed.

Moreover, the devices of some of the military Chiefs during that crude civil war were well known; and allow me to add that I am in a positive manner aware, from the unan imous, account of residents of Maturin who came to this city during that time, that