respect of the adjudications of amounts in those documents (expedientes) still pending, although they appear in the form of credits against the nation, but not for the appreciation of cases examined and concluded, before the Tribunals, under the title of "notorious injustice." In the first case the plaintiff and the Government, the sole interested parties, who have not been at law, and who avoid litigation, submit their pretensions to the just conscience of umpires. In the second case the only question is, whether the Tribunals of the Republic have evidently infringed the laws in a cause which has been concluded and carried into effect. Therefore, in regard to this last point, the decision is not nor can it be an equitable one. Mr. George Treviranus. Judgment of Mr. Joel, British Commissioner. THE documents presented in support of this claim are so full and complete, that I shall only occupy the time of the Umpire in calling his attention to some few points which merit consideration. 1st. The refusal of the Court of First Instance of Maturin to allow the case to be tried by the Commercial Court (Tribunal de Comercio). 2nd. The merchandize, for the value of which Stevenson was sued by Bórges, was said to have been shipped on board the schooner "Flying Fish," bound to Trinidad, and, it is asserted by Bórges, to be there transshipped on board the steamer "Toro" for La Guaira. No bill of lading was signed either by the Captain of the "Flying Fish" or by Stevenson, acting as agent for Treviranus, or by any other person: consequently Bórges could not recover, even if the merchandize had been lost, damaged, or misappropriated, and in no case could Bórges abandon his merchandize and sue Treviranus for a breach of contract when no contract existed. The state of war which existed in Venezuela at the time gave to the Government of Venezuela the right to close certain of her ports to commerce, which right the Govern ment availed themselves of; and the steamer "Toro" being thus prevented from making her usual voyages was sold, to avoid inevitable loss, to the Venezuelan Government. The "Flying Fish" duly made her voyage to Trinidad, and the merchandize said to have been shipped by Bórges would have been discharged, as customary with merchandize in transitu into the Custom-house there. It is there that Bórges should have claimed his merchandize; and if a contract had existed between him and Treviranus direct, or through a duly constituted agent, it could only have been after the sale of the merchandize either there or at the final port of destination; that Bórges, being enabled to show that he had suffered loss, could have brought an action to recover the loss sustained. 3rd. To show the animus of the Court, we have its refusal to permit the case to be tried before the rightful tribunal (Tribunal de Comercio); and we have the verdict which gave to Borges the amount the merchandize could have been sold for had it been delivered in due time and course at the final port of destination, together with 500 dollars damages and the costs in the suit. If Borges recovered the full value of his merchandize, according to his own showing, where are the grounds for damages ? A most significant fact in the case is this: Señor Gaspar Marquez, the lawyer employed by Stevenson to defend the suit brought against him by Bórges was appointed, before the termination of the suit, Judge of the Court in which the suit was being tried, and at his suggestion Stevenson employed a friend of Marquez to continue the suit, Marquez promising to write the necessary pleadings (escrituras), in proof of which we have a letter from Marquez to Stevenson, asking him for 30 dollars on account of these services, and yet Marquez, in his character of Judge, condemns Stevenson in the full amount claimed, and 500 dollars damages. No bill of lading or contract having been signed, Bórges could not recover against the owner of the "Flying Fish," or against Stevenson, who acted simply as agent. Mr. George Treviranus. Judgment of Señor Mora, Umpire. Caracas, September 15, 1869. HAVING duly considered this case of Mr. George Treviranus, submitted to me with your statement on the 13th ultimo, my Award is, that the said Mr. Treviranus has no right to claim at the hands of the Government of Venezuela. G. P. C. RICHARDSON claims 1,449 dollars, according to an account which he presents, for losses which he says he has sustained owing to the detention of the sloop "Norma" (of which he was the Captain), from the 12th of July to the 20th of November, 1861, in virtue of orders issued by the Authorities of the Port of Carúpano. On the 15th of July a contract was entered into between Richardson and Mr. Vincent Piccioni for the freightage of the "Norma," with the object of proceeding to Ponce and Guayanilla (Puerto Rico), there to receive, for transportation to Carúpano, a cargo of 900 quintals of corn (folio 1), and on the 21st of the same month we have a bill of lading, signed by Richardson, of a shipment on board of the "Norma" of 84,914 pounds of corn for delivery at Carúpano, to Mr. Vincent Franceschi (folio 5). There are no other documents. In the narrative which the claimant presented to the French Vice-Consul at Carúpano, submitting to him what had occurred between him and the Custom-house officials of that port (folio 3), the interested party declares that on his beating up from Guayanilla to Carúpano, he encountered a storm which compelled him to put into St. Thomas, whence, after certain repairs, he sailed on the 26th of June, despatched solely by the Custom-house, as he was ignorant of the formalities which the laws of Venezuela exacted; and as he had been informed that it was only necessary to obtain a Bill of Health, he did not fail to fulfil this obligation, and consequently he could only deliver into the Custom-house of Carúpano the despatch from St. Thomas and the register; and that when he asked permission to discharge, he was notified by the Customhouse Authorities that for having infringed the law he was fined in the sum of 1,200 dollars; and that having then requested that the register should be returned to him, in order that he might return to St. Thomas for the purpose of complying with the legal formalities, this request was refused him, notwithstanding, as he adds, that the law concedes a term of five days to every vessel arriving from foreign parts to determine whether or not to discharge. And later, in another narrative which the said Richardson sent in to the Hon. Mr. Orme, Consul-General and Charge d'Affairés of Her Britannic Majesty, he further says that he did not, in due course, go to Guayanilla, because there was no Venezuelan Consul at that port. And I must add, in order to finish the recital of the facts, that it is assured, and of which there exists proof in the British Legation, that the "Norma" was authoritatively taken out of the port by a vessel from the West Indian Station, in derision of the laws and authorities of Venezuela. Be it observed that Richardson has produced no proof whatever of the facts to which his narrative refers. Therefore the Umpire must declare that the claim cannot be admitted for want of proofs. This is a conclusive argument, and I form with it a peremptory objection under my most solemn protest. I wish, however, to demonstrate that had the narrative of the interested party been even corroborated, still his complaint would always have been totally unreasonable. Firstly. The sloop "Norma" sailing from Guayanilla, did she leave this port with the papers required by the Decree of the 5th of November, 1856, as to Custom-house regulations in regard to importations? No, Sir. Captain Richardson only furnished himself, at Guayanilla, with the bill of lading, or say with that document which insures the rights of the interested parties, the one in respect to the other, as far as regards the shipment; but he did not furnish himself with the manifest of the cargo, as required by No. 2, nor with the closed and sealed paper containing the original invoices certified by the Consul of Venezuela, as required by No. 3 of the said law, both of which documents are for the protection of the fiscal interests. "The non-presentation of the manifest causes the Captain to incur a fine of 200 dollars "the non-presentation of the sealed paper, whatever may be the cause, makes the Captain incur a fine of 1,000 dollars" (according to the said article). Secondly. Did the sloop leave St. Thomas legally despatched? No, Sir. Captain Richardson himself confesses that he had done nothing through ignorance; an ignorance totally unjustifiable, for there being a Venezuelan Consul at St. Thomas he could easily have obtained information when he asked for the Bill of Health. But it is evident there was no such ignorance of formalities, when he confesses that he did not comply with them at Guayanilla because there was no Venezuelan Consul there. Thirdly. Is his excuse that there was no Venezuelan Consul at Guayanilla of any value? No, Sir. No. 3 of the said 2nd Articles ordains that "the original invoices of the goods shipped shall be visé' by the Venezuelan Consul, and in his defect, by the Consul of a friendly, neutral nation; and in defect of any such, by the civil authority of the place where the shipment is made, in which latter case the absence of a Venezuelan Consul, and of Consuls of friendly and neutral nations, must be expressed." Fourthly. When the consignee of the sloop asked the collector of the Custom-house for the register, on the plea that five days were allowed by law for him to resolve whether he should discharge the vessel or not, ought the collector to have returned the register, thus leaving the Captain free of responsibility? No, Sir. The vessel anchored in the port without her legal papers, and the consignee resolved to unload her, and asked for the necessary permission; and thus the responsibility of Captain Richardson was made evident, and he was at once notified that he had incurred the fines, as hereinbefore stated. Once that these fines had been imposed, the vessel could not be returned to the Captain before he had paid them; for according to the 8th Article of the law, if the Captain fails to pay through insolvency, or for any other reason, the vessel and her apparel remain responsible, &c. Fifthly. But when the register was applied for to return to St. Thomas in order to comply with the necessary forms, ought the collector of the Custom-house to have returned the register? No, Sir. The law did not authorize the collector for any such thing, and much less when the Captain had been declared responsible; and it is clear that had that employé condescended to the return of the register he would have incurred a grave responsibility. In any case the employés of Carúpano only fulfilled their duty; and let it not be said that they ought to have attended to such and such considerations of equity, as advanced by Richardson, for they could grant nothing in contradiction to the definite dispositions of the law. Such considerations might perhaps be entertained at a reformation of the law, but never by the employés intrusted with the execution of that law. Let us suppose that Richardson was really ignorant of the formalities in respect to importations into Venezuela, (which is not even presumable), and let us suppose that he acted without any intention of fraud, at what conclusion should we arrive? That Richardson would remain morally justified in the consciences of the employés of the Custom-house, but never as regards the law; and if ignorance and innocence were acceptable excuses, such ignorance and innocence would speedily convert the Customhouse offices into a traffic ruinous to the Republic. In conclusion, the claim of Captain Richardson, reduced as it was by the Honourable Mr. Orme to the remittal of the fine was excusable, but to pretend to get money out of the nation under a pretext of damages is unjustifiable ! Mr. G. P. C. Richardson. Judgment of Mr. Joel, British Commissioner. THIS is a claim for damages for the illegal detention of the schooner "Norman " at Carùpano for four months and eight days, by the authorities of that port. The "Norman" was chartered at St. Thomas to proceed to the Port of Guayanilla, Island of Puerto Rico, there to take in a cargo of corn (maiz), and to proceed from thence to Carùpano, there to discharge. There being no Venezuelan Consular Agent, or Consul of any friendly nation at Guayanilla, the "Norman" was cleared in due form by the local authorities. On her voyage to Carùpano the "Norman" encountered so severe a stress of weather, that she was obliged to put into St. Thomas. After repairing sails, and obtaining a clean bill of health, she again sailed for Carúpano, where she arrived in July 1861. The captain duly presented his papers to the Administrator of the Custom-house of that port and requested permission to discharge, but was told in reply that as his papers were not signed by the Venezuelan Consul at the port of lading, or at St. Thomas, permission to discharge would not be granted to him. It must be borne in mind that there was no Venezuelan Consular Officer at Guayanilla, the port of lading, or Consul of any friendly nation, so that it was absolutely impossible to obtain a Consular certificate of any kind; that the cargo was free of all import duties, so that no allegation of fraud on the revenue could have been made against the vessel or captain; and that the pretext that a Consular certificate could have been obtained in St. Thomas, where the "Norman " was driven by stress of weather, is wholly untenable, as no Consular Officer having a knowledge of his duties, would certify under his hand and seal to the contents of a cargo taken on board at a foreign port, the nature of which he could only know from hearsay evidence, and which would consequently have been valueless if obtained. That the captain desired to conform, so far as possible, with the laws of the country is proved by his request to the Administrator of the Custom-house of Carupano to redeliver to him his papers to enable him to return to St. Thomas and obtain the certificate which the Administrator pretended was necessary. His request, though made within forty-eight hours of his coming to anchor, was illegally refused, and he was condemned to pay a fine of 1,200 dollars, and in default of payment the vessel to be confiscated. The captain immediately proceeded to Caracas and laid his case before Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, who, on the 9th of August, 1861, represented the case to the Minister of Foreign Relations, who, in his reply, dated the 17th of the same month, stated that the matter had been passed to the Minister of Finance for his decision, which decision, I may here state, has not, up to this date, been arrived at. The captain, weary of delay, submitted his case to Captain Hillyar, C.B., of Her Majesty's ship "Cadmus," who despatched Her Majesty's ship "Baracoutta" to Carupano to release the "Norman," which was done on the 20th of November, 1861. The claim is as reasonable in amount as it is just in every particular, and I am of opinion that the Umpire in his award should allow a moderate rate of interest from the date of the release of the vessel until the claim be paid. (Translation.) Mr. G. P. C. Richardson. To the Commissioners for the Settlement of British Claims. Caracas, September 29, 1869 HAVING made myself fully acquainted with the documents ("expediente ") in reference to the claim of Mr. George P. C. Richardson, which you submitted to my consideration, and also with your respective statements on the subject, I proceed to give my judgment in the following manner : The exaction of the fine by the custom-house of Carùpano was a hard case, especially when we consider that the vessel was of the smaller class, and that, as is well known, such vessels are usually commanded by ignorant masters; and if to this fact we add that the cargo being composed entirely of corn, an article which pays no import duty whatever, there could not have been, for these reasons, any intention of fraud. And if the directors of that custom-house had no power to remit the fine, it is also true that it was the duty of the National Government to have shown some consideration in favour of commerce generally, and in this case in favour of an unfortunate man, the subject of a friendly nation, and whose fault consisted solely in his ignorance. The fact also that the arguments of the British Legation in favour of Richardson were not attended to shows a grave want of common attention to commercial interests, and even of courtesy to the person who directed the representation. On the other hand, it is evident that Captain Richardson came without the necessary documents required by law; that he did not either present those proving the damage ("averia ") his vessel had sustained; that, in common with all masters of vessels, he should have made himself acquainted with the formalities and requisites established in the country to which he was bound, especially as when in Saint Thomas he could have obtained the necessary information even from the freighter of his vessel; and, in conclusion, as this vessel was extricated by the opportune intervention of a vessel of war of his nation; taking all these facts into consideration, I am of opinion there are no grounds why any indemnification should be allowed to the said Richardson. I am, &c. (Signed) GUILLO. STURUP, Umpire by Lot. (Translation.) Thomas Antiga and Philip Williams. Judgment of Dr. Mendez, Venezuelan Commissioner. THE British Commissioner sustains, as the legitimate Representative of the Republic, a certain Mr. P. Salazar, who entitles himself" El Fiscal del Fisco," in some documentary proofs presented by Mr. Thomas Antiga and Philip Williams in October, 1865, before the District Court of the Boca del Pao in Barcelona, with the intention of proving losses incurred during the war of the Federation. Mr. P. Salazar might very well have been a collector, or perchance an administrator of the rents of the district "Boca del Pao," but the Procurator of the nation (mandatary ad hoc) in the State of Barcelona, who in conformity with the 4th rule of the 28th Article of the Law on Public Credit of the 16th June, 1865, and the resolution of the administration of the same Department, dated the 8th of the following August, should have crossexamined the witnesses, was General Ricardo Silva, as is shown by the two notes which I transmit herewith, the one marked A being original, and the other marked B being a certified copy. If I could believe that it were necessary for me to make any observation to show that it was an absurdity to attach a legitimate representation of the nation to the first comer who should present himself in a tribunal calling himself the "Fiscal," without being invested by the nation with powers to that effect, I would believe also that the execution of the Commission confided to me is unnecessary, and I should prefer at once to resign. "Sir, (Inclosure A.) "Caracas, September 11, 1869. In reply to your communication of the 7th of this month, I have the honour to send you a copy of the answer given by the Department of Interior and Justice, in respect to your inquiry as to who was the person that occupied the post of Procurator of the nation in the State of Barcelona in October 1865. "Union and liberty! "To Dr. Juan de Dios Mendez." (Signed) "T. RIERA AGUINAGALDE. (Inclosure B.) (Translation.) "Estados Unidos de Venezuela, "Caracas, September 10, 1869. "Citizen Minister of Foreign Relations, "In reply to your note of yesterday I have the honour to state to you that in the archives of this Department it is to be seen that the citizen General Ricardo Silva was named the National Procurator in the State of Barcelona on the 19th August, 1865, which post he must have occupied in the month of October, for in the correspondence with the said General Silva there are letters with the date of November of that year, and there is nothing to show that between August and the said month of November any other nomination had been made, "Union and liberty! "Copy (Signed) "The Secretary for Foreign Relations, "VICENTE AMENGUAL. |