It would be difficult to employ much stronger language, and yet every word is applicable to the present claim, because the Court finds all this illegality and turpitude to flow from a breach of neutral duty. The case referred to is the case of McBlair v. Gibbs, 17 H., 249; 21 Curtis, p. 479. The original case of Gill, Trustee, &c., in 11 H., was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because the Court did not find that there was any question involved under the judiciary act on which a writ of error could be founded. The decision of the Maryland Court was thus left to stand, and he would be a bold man who would undertake to maintain that it can be shaken, either on principle or authority.

It is well known that the Chief-Justice (Taney) did not agree with his brethren as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and afterwards filed an elaborate dissenting opinion, in which he reviewed the controversy, growing out of these Mexican claims, at great length. In the course of this opinion, in speaking of the action of the Commission in allowing the claims, he says:

"Of course it was their duty not to allow any claim for services rendered to Mexico or money advanced for its use by American citizens in violation of their duty to their own country or in disobedience to its laws. For the Government would have been unmindful of its own duty to the United States if it had used its power and influence to enforce a claim of that description or had sanctioned it by treaty." (Williams v. Gibbs, 17 H., 262; 21 Curtis, 492.)

We do not understand that the observations of Justice Grier, quoted in the brief, are at all in conflict with this opinion of the Chief-Justice. Doubtless the risks taken by the Mexican Company, in Baltimore, in furnishing military supplies to General Miña ought to have enhanced the justice and equity of its claims against the New Government of Mexico, which had its origin in the revolution begun by Miña. The court, as we understand it, besides making what was an extra-judicial utterance, the case having gone off on a point of jurisdiction, only means to say that the Mexican

Government, in 1825, did a very proper and honorable thing in recognizing the justice of these claims.

So here we might express our individual opinions that Venezuela is in honor bound to make restitution, provided, of course, she has not already done so, by an appropriation for not only this claim, but also that arising out of the seizure of the Portuguese vessel. But we have said enough on this subject, and whatever may be the duty of Venezuela, being strongly of the opinion that the claimants have no standing before this Commission, their petitions will be dismissed and claims rejected.

The immediate basis of this claim is 366 debentures of 500 pesos each, executed and delivered, 1839, by Venezuela to Gardner G. Howland and Samuel S. Howland, citizens of the United States, doing business in the city of New York, under the firm name and style of G. G. & S. S. Howland, in exchange for 406 obligations of like amount each, issued by the old Republic of Colombia to, or obtained by, said firm in 1829, and forming a part of that portion of the Colombian public debt for which Venezuela became responsible under the convention of settlement of 1834-5, among the States which had formed that Republic.

Each bill with indorsement, reads as follows:

DEUDA CONSOLIDABLE DE VENEZUELA.

Número

Republica de Venezuela.

Deuda Consolidada.

La Républica de Venezuela reconoce a favor del portador el capital de quinientos pesos procedentes de créditos contra Colombia con el interes de cinco por ciento el año desde primero de Enero de mil ochocientos veinte y siete.

Caracas 15 de Setiembre de 1839.

G. Smith.

MI. Echeandia.

Vicente Lecuna.

[Endorsed.]

Recibido y anotado bajo el No. 10 del Libro respectivo.

Republic of Venezuela.

Consolidated debt.

500 dollars.

Fol. 6.

Interest 5 per cent.

The Republic of Venezuela acknowledges itself indebted to the bearer in the sum of five hundred dollars, arising from the debt of Colombia, with interest at five per cent. per annum from the first of January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven.

Caracas, September 15, 1839.

G. Smith.

Ml. Echeandia.

Vicente Lecana.

Received and entered under No. 10 of the respective book.

No part of these bills has been paid, and they are still

owned by American citizens, claimants here,

The question first arising fully and ably argued by counsel for the United States and the claimants, though not urged by counsel for Venezuela, is as to jurisdiction. "Claims" only being submitted to this Commission, do these obligations come within the meaning of that term? The distinguished Umpire of the Mixed Commission created under the convention of 1857 between the United States and New Grenada for the settlement of claims against the latter of citizens of the former, and in which the language of submission was, mutatis mutandis, identical with that of the present treaty, held, 1864, that "bonds" of New Grenada were not "claims" under the convention, and therefore not within the jurisdiction of that Commission.

If his conclusion was correct, it perhaps would follow that these bills do not constitute a "claim" under the present convention, although we are not advised whether New Grenada made a defence, on the merits, to the bonds in that case, as is done here.

Perhaps as good a way as any to discuss this question is to review, by paragraphs, the Umpire's opinion.

He says (italics ours):

"The high contracting parties in substituting to themselves a special tribunal for the settlement of certain matters at issue between them, do not thereby divest themselves of their power to treat directly and in the ordinary manner all questions which are not expressly submitted to the Commission so established in their stead."

The implication here that only matters "at issue " between the two governments are for "settlement" would seem to lack support in the terms of the treaty. The language of submission is:

"All claims on the part of corporations, companies, or individuals, citizens of the United States, upon the Government of Venezuela, which may have been presented to their government or to its legation at Caracas shall be submitted," &c.

It will be observed there is no requirement that matters submitted shall have been "at issue," if by that is meant an assertion of the claim by one government and a