The Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim in any case which was not presented to the Government of the United States or its legation at Caracas. While this provision, however, vests the jurisdiction there is no presumption to be made in favor of the bona fides or validity of a claim simply from the fact of presentation. The claim now under consideration was presented to the Government of the United States on the 8th day of September, 1855, by Mr. Driggs in a letter addressed to the Secretary of State, in which he enclosed what purports to be an exemplified copy of the original contract or receipt on which it was founded, together with the depositions of two persons alleged to have been the witnesses to the contract, and the deposition of Driggs himself. Copies of these papers were forwarded to the United States Minister at Caracas by Mr. Marcy, with instructions to investigate the case, and to bring it to the attention of the Government of Venezuela if he was satisfied as to its merits. Mr. Eames was Minister at that time, and it appears that he either neglected or refused to intervene. He was succeeded by Mr. Turpin, and after considerable pressure this gentleman, evidently to get rid of the case, turned over the papers before referred to, together with other voluminous expediente, to the Minister of Foreign Relations, without a word of either explanation or recommendation, some time in 1859.

The Minister of Foreign Relations in reviewing the papers on the 17th of June, 1859, made an exhaustive reply, summed

up in twelve propositions, the pith of which may be condensed in a single word-fraud.

On this reply there is a minute anonymously endorsed, but apparently in Mr. Turpin's handwriting, in the following words and figures:

"There is no doubt of this being an entirely fraudulent claim put forth by Seth Driggs many years after the death of all the persons interested, and bolstered up by false swearing of Driggs himself in the person of Barnes & Smith, who are myths, being no other thau Driggs himself swearing in his own behalf and in those names, a practice Driggs is addicted to, and for which he was condemned to 8, 5, and 2 years' imprisonment by 3 tribunals of Venezuela."

There the case rested until Mr. Culver went to Caracas as Minister, when it was revived in a lengthy despatch prepared by him and addressed to the Minister of Foreign Relations on the 16th day of December, 1862.

Driggs, however, in the meantime had prepared himself a long answer to the reply sent to Mr. Turpin, in which he reviewed each one of the twelve propositions before referred to, and this paper is incorporated in and made a part of Mr. Culver's despatch. It cannot be said, therefore, of this claim that it was never presented as required by the convention of 1885, but it is a fact nevertheless that the Government of the United States, through its legation at Caracas, refused to entertain the claim until the papers in the case were dumped into the Foreign Office of Venezuela by Mr. Turpin, under circumstances which show plainly enough that that gentleman was not willing to take the responsibility of either a personal or an official endorsement.

The claim originated in a receipt for merchandise by one Benezer Goodrich from Seth Driggs, under date of May 10, 1835, the goods to be sold at Carupano, in the Province of Cuma na or Rio Caribes, as circumstances might dictate, for account and risk of Driggs, on a guaranteed profit of 10 per cent. per annum, to be paid until the goods estimated to be worth $2,000 should be paid for, the remaining profits. to accrue to Goodrich, "in consideration of which he guarantees the debts."

The merchandise was to be sold and the proceeds invested in cocoa for export, and in this venture Driggs was to have one-fourth of the profits and the balance to go to Goodrich. The instrument purports to be under seal and is witnessed by "J. Smith" and "S. Barnes."

What the character of the merchandise was does not appear, but it does appear that Goodrich was very unfortunate in disposing of it, because about five months after the date of the receipt, the whole consignment remained intact in the original packages just as it was delivered.

This is established by the evidence of J. Smith, one of the witnesses to the receipt, who, by one of those lucky coincidences which only befall the very fortunate, happened to be present just at the critical moment when his testimony would be of most value to Mr. Driggs, and curiously enough, too, as far as his affidavit shows, without there being any personal business or tie of any kind between them which can account for services so useful and opportune. It appears that this Mr. Smith, who appears to have borne the Christian name of James, was requested by Mr. Driggs to proceed to Carupano sometime in the month of September, 1835, to inquire how Goodrich was progressing with his business, and that in the execution of this commission he visited the town as desired, and there, to quote his own language:

"Saw the goods belonging to Mr. Driggs in the store of Mr. Goodrich in their original packages.'

How opportune this arrival of Mr. Smith in Carupano was; may be learned by what immediately follows the above quotation, for he says:

"That two days thereafter, in the absence of Mr. Goodrich who had closed his store on account of the revolution, deponent saw the Government troops in the act of purloining the said merchandise from the store of Mr. Goodrich, and they continued in the violent and felonious act until they had abstracted all the merchandise belonging to Mr. Driggs, and also that belonging to Mr. Goodrich together with all his personal effects, leaving him entirely destitute; that Goodrich declared to the deponent at the time that he had suffered in a loss of more than six hundred dollars in his own right independent of the loss

sustained by Mr. Driggs, besi les his prospective gain, and that these acts of violence perpetrated by the troops would prove his total ruin."

These statements appear in what purports to be an exemplified copy of an affidavit made by Smith on the 2d day of July, 1855, before the Hon. Ira Harris, justice of the Supreme Court of New York, in Albany.

His co-witness to the receipt, Mr. S. Barnes, or Samuel, as he is styled in the deposition, comes forward on the 3d of August following, and makes oath before Florence McCarthy, justice of the Marine Court of New York, that it was a matter of common notoriety that Driggs had suffered in the manner related, and that he was employed in one of Mr. Driggs' establishments in the island of Trinidad, at the time indicated. He and Smith both verify their signatures to the receipt and prove its execution.

Three days thereafter, on the 7th of August, Seth Driggs himself appears before the Hon. Charles A. Ingersoll, judge of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and makes oath substantially to the same facts, and states that his losses and damages, including interest to the 31st of December, 1855, amounted to the sum of $7,275.00, for which he claimed indemnity.

The receipt, the depositions of Smith and Barnes, and this deposition of Driggs then all appear to have been filed in the clerk's office of the city and county of New York, on the 6th of September, 1855, and on the same day copies were made and purport to be authenticated in a manner which, without explanation, bears upon its face every evidence of fraud. These copies were forwarded by Driggs to Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, with a letter under date of September 8, 1855, in which he says he has the honor to "enclose an exemplified copy of certain original documents filed," &c., and it is copies of these copies and of the exemplification which were received at Caracas, the original copy being submitted, for the first time, to this Commission by the Department of State at Washington. We mention this to explain

why no notice was taken by Mr. Turpin or Eames of the very peculiar form in which the exemplification comes before us. In the copy or copies (for there are several) as they appear in the expediente, there is nothing in the first part of the record to attract the attention of even a critical observer, because the different papers certified to appear to follow in regular sequence, after the formal caption, some of them being marked by red letters, and then follows the authenticating part of the instrument, but the defect in this is apparent also in the copy.

The first part of the exemplification is a little less than a half sheet of blue paper, on which is printed the usual "greeting," &c., the other part of the paper having been cut or torn off, and this printed paper has pasted on it a circular piece of yellow paper scalloped round the edge and purporting to bear the impression of the seal of New York.

The other papers containing the receipt and depositions are long white sheets of legal-cap paper, with about two inches of the lower left-hand margin cut out, and have no connection with the first paper, except as they are fastened to it by a string.

Then comes the certificate, which is not printed, but written on a blue sheet of paper with an inch margin lined off on the left and cut precisely in the same way as the other papers referred to, only in this case the incision was made through what appears to have been an impression of the seal of New York stamped on the paper, less than half of which remains. It reads as follows:

"All of which we have caused by these presents to be exemplified and the seal of said Supreme Court hereto affixed."

Then there is the word "witness" without anything further, but on the next line come the words :

"Thomas W. Clerke, Esq., Justice of the City of New York, this 6th day of September, A. D. 1855, and of our independance (sic) the eightieth.

RICHARD B. CONNOLLY,

66
'Clerk."