with them, being the same that was "admissible" before them, and the "further evidence" named in article 5; and there is not included in it former awards or adjudications.

5. After decision the present Commissioners are, as were the former ones, required to issue certificates of award for the sums to be paid claimants "by virtue of their decisions." 6. The new, like the old, decisions are made "final and conclusive" as to the claims submitted.

All things considered, we are led to the conclusion that the original claims submitted stand before us with respect to the hearing and determination thereof substantially as they stood before the former Commission, with the difference indicated in article 5, as to additional evidence; that we are engaged in a "rehearing" (Art. 8) of said claims, and not in a "review" of the former adjudications or awards pertaining thereto; and that in our considerations we cannot "concede to such adjudications or awards "force and legal effect." There remains, as before suggested, in each case, the fact of the former adjustment; also, the opinions pertaining to it. Whatever light these may give will, of course, be availed of. The action of the former Commission, like any authority consulted, will have such consideration as it is thought entitled to.

MUST CLAIMANTS APPEAR, OR BE PERSONALLY REPRESENTED?

The claimants in some of the cases have not appeared in person or by representative. Is such appearance necessary? While it is desirable, we think it not essential for the purposes of adjudication. Article 5 of the treaty provides for the consideration of the evidence admissible under the old treaty, "together with such other and further evidence as the claimants may offer through their respective governments," &c. By article 6 it is made the duty of the Commissioners in proper cases to issue certificates of award "To each claimant," &c.; and under article 10, the Department of

State is required to distribute certain moneys "to the holders of certificates which may be issued under the present convention."

While the treaty, being a public law, is itself legal notice to everybody of what may be done in pursuance of it, yet in view of these provisions special pains have been taken to bring actual notice to all concerned of the pending proceedings, to the end of securing the appearance of claimants. Early notice was given by the Department of State, through the Associated Press, and inserted in newspapers of wide circulation, and other means of publicity employed.

Still there is a number of claims unrepresented, which, with all others in the submission, it is made our duty to decide, "nolens volens," as counsel for awardees insist, within the limits, of course, of our ability to do so within the year. We are disposed to concur in their views that bona fide certificate holders are equitable assignees pro tanto of the claims out of which the awards arose, and have allowed those claiming to be such to appear in support of such claims. But whether we have the power or means of finally determining who are such holders is altogether another matter.

While the decision of unrepresented claims is imperative, it does not involve the anomaly of adjudicating one's rights without his having a day in court. The parties to these controversies are the two Governments. They are represented by learned counsel. If they were not, the Commission is their joint agency, and its acts, within its authority, are theirs.

In general, as we conceive, a claim of a citizen of one state upon another state, when taken up on his petition and diplomatically pressed for payment against the latter by the former, stands and is subject to be treated, for the purposes of prosecution, disposition, and settlement, as if owned by the plaintiff state. For these purposes,

and in this sense, it ceases to be an individual, and becomes a national, claim. Whatever settlement or mode

of settlement it may agree to or adopt, binds him. Such is the implied understanding when he accepts the aid of his government (see Diekelman v. U. S., 92 U. S. R., 524). And the state's position, as seems to us, is not merely of a representative character. It is essentially that of an interested party as well. Its interest is broader and deeper than a mere monetary one. It comprehends the general weal. The state, as a corporate existence, being an aggregation of individuals, is by common understanding, injured by injuring any of them. For his allegiance and services as a member of the community the citizen is entitled, as of right, while lawfully employed, to the return of the state's suitable protection against wrongs from without as well as from within its own confines. The observance of the obligation is fundamental and vital to government. Its violation involves a breach of trust disintegrating and destructive in tendency. Do away with its discharge, and government perishes. Impair the public confidence in that discharge by failure of duty in any instance, and the state suffers far beyond any possible injury to the citizen. Hence, in these controversies, the United States Government is not a perfunctory party, but a real-in an important sense the real -party (on one side) in interest; not, of course, to secure the allowance of unjust claims-in the nature of things it cannot vouch for validity in advance-but to assist as it may in securing justice to its citizens, whatever that may be. In truth, if a remark aside may be indulged, the real underlying interests of the two governments in this respect are identical. For it is as much the concern of the one, in a true international sense, to do justice as it is of the other to have justice done. Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets, is a doctrine, it may be taken, lying at the base of the convention itself.

1. On the 28th of May, 1812, sailed from New York for La Guayra the American schooner William Yeaton, Travers master, chartered by the Government of the United States to carry a cargo of flour intended as a donation "to the unfortunate inhabitants of the province of Venezuela," who had suffered by the earthquake of the 26th of March of said year, and consigned to Robert K. Lowry, Consul of the United States at La Guayra, where she arrived the 1st of July.

2. There she was found and detained, together with several other American vessels, without having completed the unloading of the flour, by the Spanish army of pacification, which, under the command of General Don Domingo Monteverde, had regained Caracas and La Guayra at the end of July, 1812, in virtue of the capitulation signed at La Victoria the 25th of that month by Monteverde and General Miranda, which delivered Venezuela up again into the power of Spain. 3. Sent to Puerto Cabello, she was, on adjudication, declared good prize and condemned by decree of the 23d of September following; but by means of the exertions of Forrest, her owner, and of persons near the new government, she was restored to him on the 26th of October.

4. On the 29th of October Lowry, the United States Consul, appointed a commission of surveyors to examine the schooner and value the damage that might have resulted to her by her seizure and occupation by the Spaniards, who reported that she had not materially suffered in consequence of those doings,