"I want $600 immediately and $2,000 by the first of April, to leave the country on special business "[to secure the 'evidence' against the Government in cases disposed of]; "the balance can remain over for six months. All my business is and must continue paralyzed until I receive at least $600."

Venezuela paid him nothing meantime; yet he had $1,000 to advance "for the use of the Government" in 1857, against which he was maturing and preparing claims amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars for its wrongs towards him, "for which there must come a day of retribution!"

He says that through Minister Culver, a liquidation of "these credits," including a "liquidated claim," 1858, of $505.20, was had before the "Board of Liquidation Caracas in 1864; but the board refused to allow interest. The "statement" then proceeds:

"The present claim is not either for a salary or a pension" [he had included in one of his accounts an item as due himself of $800, on account of the Clark pension-see case No. 19,] “but for money advanced in good faith for the use of the Government, and orders given by the Secretary of the Treasury on the Public Treasurer for the payment, which orders were disallowed, but withheld from the person in whose favor they were drawn; and the idea of not paying interest under the circumstances is preposterous."

Thus we have the claim founded upon obligations issued by the Government, but in possession of its disbursing officers, without a scratch in the hands of the owner to show the nonpayment! We do not stop to point out the improbabilities of the case upon Driggs' own statements;-to inquire, for instance, whether the Secretary of the Treasury would issue an order for $1,000 against Furlong's "credit," when there were three outstanding orders covering it. There are other sufficient grounds for the disposition of the claim.

The former Commission allowed him $1,808, including interest on the $3,264.70 demanded. The allowance was approved by the Umpire, and thought to be due by the Venezuelan Commissioner, "from," as he said, "the documents shown by the claimant." What they were we of course can only infer by what have been transmitted us.

When it is stated that the "documents" we have in support of this claim, so far as they tend in that direction, consist of letters and "statements" of Driggs himself, including his petition under oath and his sworn protest in 1854 as to the Cumaná notes, we need scarcely say, in view of the developments in his cases already decided, that such “documents" are, in our judgment, unsatisfactory and insufficient, aside from the inherent improbability of their material and important averments.

Even had he been trustworthy, most of the documents would have to be excluded from consideration. For the most part they consist of letters or alleged copies of letters which he wrote, or claimed to have written, to the Secretary of State, the American Minister and Chargé d'Affaires at Caracas, and the Venezuelan Government, at various times from 1851 to 1866. These were but his own declarations, and he was himself before the former Commission. Such letters, offered by himself or in his favor, are not evidence against the Venezuelan Government. It was not bound to take notice of his communications to it; much less to those addressed to his own Government had there been unofficial notice of them, and nothing is to be inferred against it for failure to do so. What the rule might be, had the letters gone to it through the official channels of the United States, and remained unanswered, it is not necessary to inquire, for there is no intimation that such in any instance was the case. Could this method of establishing claims against a government prevail, the strongest nations would not long be secure against bankruptcy.

Among the expediente is the draft of a letter by Driggs in his own hand which, in 1866, he desired the new American Minister, Mr. Wilson, to embody, or rather to adopt, in a despatch to the Venezuelan Government.

We give it in hæc verba, omitting accompanying "statement," taking the liberty, however, to emphasize some passages, as a specimen of the "documents" used in support of

It

this claim, and as indicating the claimant's methods touching the support of his "divers international claims." reads:

To the Honorable RAFIEL SEIJERS,

Secretary of State for Foreign Relations.

CARACAS, October, 1866.

The undersigned, Minister Resident of the United States of America, has the honor to call the attention of the Honorable Minister of Foreign Relations to the following statement filed in the Legation of the United States by Mr. Seth Driggs, a citizen thereof.

[Here follows the statement.]

By the foregoing statement, and the records of this Legation, it appears Mr. Driggs has from time to time advanced money for the benefit of the Government of Venezuela; in 1848, in Cumaná, to sustain the troops; in 1857 to repair the Artillery Barracks, and also repair and embellish the Government House, paper its walls and furnish matting for its floors, for the payment of which the Secretary of the Treasury gave orders on the Public Treasury, which orders were dishonored by the Treasurer; and after all other means were tried to obtain his payment for the money so advanced, Mr Driggs was obliged to have recourse to the Minister of his country for his intervention; but no respect it appears has been paid to the applications of that functionary, showing an utter disregard by the Government of Venezuela to do justice to a citizen of the United States, who generously advanced his money for the benefit of this Government, and it is evident the time lost and expenses incurred in making voyages from Cumaná to Caracas, and from Caracas to La Guayra, and the multitude of applications to this Government amounted to more than the original amount claimed, and whilst a citizen of the United States has been thus unjustly dealt with, and kept out of his money, tens of millions of dollars have been distributed to citizens of Venezuela, and the withholding of the insignificant sum of three thousand dollars from Mr. Driggs under the circumstances is an unwarrantable piece of injustice which can no longer be submitted to with impunity.

A liquidation of these claims were made on the 24th February, 1864, by the Board of Liquidators. Under instruction from the Secretary of the Treasury, the claims were all admitted by the Board, but they disallow interest on the orders of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Public Treasury because no stipulation was contained therein to pay interest. When the orders were given it was presumed they would be paid on presentation, consequently there was no occasion to stipulate for the payment of interest, the orders being dishonored, from that moment interest accrued. This is the practice in all civilized nations; the fault was not on the part of the holder of the orders but on the part of the payee, and it would be an act of dishonor on the

part of Venezuela for a moment to decline paying interest on money lent after the great forbearance on the part of the lender.

Why argue about the existence of a debt if already liquidated and acknowledged by the Government and orders for its payment issued?

We have regarded the claimant's conduct in other cases as indicating mental derangement. The presumption here displayed, and the assumption that a dispatch manifestly so untruthful and otherwise so grossly improper could be procured from the American legation, are another evidence of mental and moral infirmity.

The claim is disallowed.

Leonardo Peck, a citizen of the United States, lived the greater part of his life at Maturin, Venezuela. There he accumulated property and raised a family. His children, however, were born out of wedlock. They and their mother were natives of Venezuela, never having been in the United States so far as appears. While on a visit to his old home at Syracuse, New York, he died, October 31, 1860. It seems he left a will, though the paper sent us purporting to be its translation and probate, is of a very unsatisfactory character. It has incongruities of date, and is apparently fragmentary. We do not feel justified in basing any property rights upon it. The claim is for stock taken from Peck's farms near Maturin, by military forces in 1859, 1860, and 1861, and is asserted by the executor of his will and also by his two sons. total value of the stock taken, including interest, was asserted to be, in 1864, 23,181.75 pesos.

The

This was supported by the depositions of twelve witnesses examined in the presence of and cross-examined by a representative of the government, who fully corroborated the statements of the executor, Fabricio Aponte, to the effect that the property named was taken at the times indicated from the farms (sitios) of Peck by the military forces of the Government, and that it was worth as to all the animals the price stated.

Señor Esteves, of the Department of Pubic Credit, allowed, Sept. 28, 1864, the entire amount of this claim, except