The upper story of the warehouse was let to a Masonic lodge, which had given a mortgage on the fixtures and furniture in the room as security for the rent, a part of which was then in arrears, the mortgage itself, however, or a copy not appearing among the papers. Venezuela at the period spoken of, was torn by factions, and on the 2d of August, 1859, on an attempt by the Federal forces to seize the capital, then in the possession of a government set up and supported by the Unionists, the warehouse of Willet, having an advantageous position for defence, was occupied by the military forces of the governing power, who first turned it into a sort of fort, and afterwards continued to occupy it as barracks until the 11th of April, 1863, destroying, consuming, or pillaging in the meantime the stock of goods and everything of value connected with the establishment, including the gasometer. Prompt application was made to the Minister of the United States for redress, but with the exception of a small sum for use and occupation and a draft for $- on the same account, which was not paid, Venezuela appears to have refused or failed to make any allowance.

Pending these negotiations, Willet, who had returned to the United States on a visit, appears to have died in 1862, at sea, on his way back to Venezuela, intestate, and the claim was then taken up by his widow, who prepared and presented the petitions before referred to, and with the accompanying papers, had them sent to the old Commission. It appears that Mr. Culver, U. S. Minister at Venezuela, in 1864 prepared a schedule of claims of citizens of the United States against Venezuela, and sent it to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of that Government on the 1st of March of that year. A copy of this paper duly certified is before us, and among other claims scheduled is the claim of W. E. Willet for 50,000 pesos. It will be observed that the 1st of March, 1864, is the date on which Mrs. Willet sent the petition before mentioned to this same Minister, accompanied by an account in which she claimed 150,791.07 pesos. The peti

tion of Mrs. Allen avers that this claim was sent by the U. S. Minister to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Venezuela on the 22d of March, 1864.

It would seem from this that the statement of account of March 1, accompanying the widow's petition, either did not reach Mr. Culver on that date, or it must have been by some mistake overlooked. It is more than probable that it was not received on the day of its date, and that in the meantime the schedule of claims was made up on the 1st of March from data then in the possession of the Legation, and according to which this claim amounted to 50,000 pesos. Afterwards when the claim for 150,791.07 pesos was received, the Minister must have prepared and forwarded a second communication to the Venezuelan Government on the 22d of March. However this may be, the papers in the case show that at one time, the date of which does not appear, although it must have been prior to the 1st of March, 1864, the amount of the claim as presented to the American Legation at Caracas was only 50,000 pesos, and that subsequently this amount was increased to 150,790.07 pesos. The petition actually sent to the Commission at Caracas, we have shown, failed to specify any amount, but only prayed to be allowed whatever that tribunal might see fit to award. None of these papers are sworn to, nor is there any external evidence to substantiate the statements made in them except the following:

1. A series of interrogatories propounded by Mrs. Willet in 1864, to several witnesses, with respect to the nature and damage done by the troops to the warehouse and the stock of goods, the value of a great deal of which may be gathered from the answers made to the second of these interrogatories. This interrogatory is as follows:

"Whether the witness knows by personal knowledge owing to the witness having visited the warehouse on several occasions; that when it was occupied on the 2d of August, 1859, by the Government forces, the main storehouse and the gallery below and other rooms in the building were filled with merchandise of all classes, especially machinery for different purposes, house

furniture, matches, liquors, rifles, revolvers, wall-paper, oil paintings, engines moved by animal power and also by steam, lamps, cigars, &c. All of which represented at sight a value of more than $40,000 without counting the cost of transportation of the said merchandise to Mr. Willet's store or the duties thereon paid at the Custom House."

Mr. Julian Jackson answers to this interrogatory as follows:

"That it is true and he knows it, for the reason stated in the question, and because he saw the house before and after the occupation."

Mr. Fernando Mendes, the second witness, states in reply to the same interrogatory:

"That it is true. The witness remembers that there were also plows, wagons, wheelbarrows of several sizes, a large quantity of rails, and barrels of fine liquors and also demijohns and cases."

Pedro Regulado says:

"All that is in the question is true, and he knows it, because he saw it." José Maria Aramburu, the fourth witness, seems to have had some appreciation of what was involved in the question and in the responsibility of making a correct reply, for while he states that he had the means of knowing, as janitor of the Masonic lodge before referred to, of what the stock of goods consisted, and after stating that the greatest part of the articles mentioned in the question were there, goes on to say that he is not "able to state the value of the stock because it would have been necessary to make an inventory," but then adds, "in my opinion the amount indicated is correct."

The second class of testimony consists of questions propounded by Mrs. Willet to eight different correspondents who appear to have known her husband and the character of the business he carried on, and the extent of his establishment, and the answers made to these questions. These interrogatories appear to have been seven in number, the second of which was the same as the one just mentioned, and the sixth was as follows:

"Whether it is true that, on or about the 2d of August, the lodge, which had been established for a long time previously in the upper part of the

house, owed Willett for rents due more than $3,000, and that, to secure the payment thereof, it had given him a mortgage upon the furniture and appurtenances of the lodge, and whether all this property, including the paper on the walls, was stolen in consequence of the forced occupation of the house, the doors of which were broken of en, a value of more than $8,000, at which the furniture could be fairly estimated, having been lost in this way."

Mr. Fernando Arvelo, on the 29th of September, 1863, says in reply to the letter enclosed to him, that he

"Believes that articles and machinery stored in the building might be worth the amount set forth in the question and I judge so because of the abundance and quality of the merchandise and machinery which were in the house."

With the exception to be mentioned presently, the other replies as affording the means by which a fair estimate of the value of the property taken can be made are equally unsatisfactory, Mr. Pio Albor stating, for instance :

"For the sake of truth I will tell you that all that you ask in it (the letter addressed to him by Mrs. Willet) is true and correct, and I know it because I was an eye-witness of all the acts referred to in it."

Mr. Romulo Guardin, however, answers as follows:

"I answer the five questions propounded to me in the foregoing letter and say that everything stated therein is true and that I know it from my own personal knowledge, and as you ask me to state approximately the value of the establishment and the gasometer, I shall say that the former was worth from forty to fifty thousand dollars, and that the cost of the latter in the manufactory with all its appurtenances was fifteen hundred dollars."

On the 22d of September, 1863, Mr. Manuel Maria Fernandez answered Mrs. Willet's second question as follows:

"I was first a clerk and then the manager of that establishment, and at the time the stock consisting of the articles specified in the question was of much more value than that which you give to it when you say that it was worth forty thousand dollars. When I left the warehouse an inventory and valuation was made which I remember very well amounted to more than one hundred thousand dollars, and for this reason I think that on or about the 2d of August, 1869, the value of the stock was larger than you say.”

To this answer there is an explanation of counsel in a note at the bottom of page 18 of the brief that

"Mrs. Willet had valued the stock at more than $40,000 without counting the cost of transportation of the said merchandise to Mr. Willet's store or the duties thereon paid at the Custom House."

This explanation of course was offered to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between her statement as to the value of the stock and the statement just made by the witness, but it must be observed with respect to this explanation, that Mrs. Willet at that time (22d of September, 1863) had made no statement that we have been able to discover, such as that referred to in the note. She had propounded the second interrogatory to witnesses and correspondents, asking them whether in their opinion the stock was not worth $40,000 exclusive of incidental charges for duties, transportation, &c., but she herself had not placed this valuation upon the stock except so far as it may be inferred from the character of the question itself. On the 1st of March, 1864, she places the loss of her husband at $150,791.07, but at the time her correspondent wrote this letter, there is no evidence among the papers to show that she had estimated the damages at so high a figure.

The brief (p. 19) states that

"The foregoing correspondence was presented to the Court of First Instance of Caracas on the 26th of January, 1864, with a petition of Mrs. Willet, asking that the writers should be summoned before the court to identify their letters and to be examined in regard to their contents."

The district attorney, so the petition alleges, was notified to be present, and was present, at the examination of all the witnesses, with the exception of the eighth, and signed the record. We have no knowledge of the character of this proceeding, except what this statement discloses, and it would seem that it was instituted for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to secure the identification and verification of the letters by the persons who wrote them, and, to give additional solemnity to the inquiry, the district attorney was notified to be present, and attended. However that may be, the statements are valueless as evidence, except for the purpose of establishing the occupation of the building by the troops, and the destruction of what appeared to be a large and valuable stock of goods, with the single exception of the