Page images
PDF
EPUB

ant's verification of the old urgent account of 1841, twentysix years after its date, without cause for the delay, supposing it to be competent testimony, is not sufficient under the circumstances of the case to overcome the presumption of settlement.

[blocks in formation]

The papers in this case consist : 1. Of a petition in which Seth Driggs states that Benjamin Goodrich, a citizen of the United States of America, was established in business at Carúpano, Venezuela, in the month of September, 1835, when said place was taken and ransacked by the revolutionary troops under the direction of Commandant Pedro Carujo; that Goodrich's store having been entered by the same troops, was plundered of all its contents; that, thereby, Goodrich lost all he possessed (about six hundred dollars in goods of his own, besides his personal effects), and having been reduced to extreme poverty, at last died miserably at La Guayra; that all the misfortunes of Goodrich were attributable solely to the outrage of which he had been made a victim at Carúpano by soldiers wearing the national uniform of Venezuela; and he (Driggs) therefore claimed in behalf of three grandchildren, minors, named Daniel, Lucy, and Adell Dibble, that Goodrich had left in orphanage, absolutely destitute of fortune, the moderate sum of six thousand pesos as a just compensation for the losses that their grandfather had suffered. 2. Of an affidavit served before the United States Legation at Caracas on the 23d of April, 1868, in which said Driggs declares that he had intimately known Benjamin Goodrich, with whom he had kept up commercial relations; that he had been at Goodrich's establishment at Carpano one week before the above-mentioned outrage was committed; that he was acquainted with said fact, and

considered the sum of six thousand pesos as a poor remuneration for the damage Goodrich had thereby sustained; and that Daniel, Lucy, and Adell Dibble were the only surviving heirs of the said Goodrich.

There is no evidence at all in support of this claim. The petitioner himself is not a legal but a voluntary representative for the so-called minor heirs of Goodrich. we disallow it.

Therefore

[blocks in formation]

It appears that Margaret Clark, of the city of Baltimore, widow of Captain John Clark, who spent a considerable portion of his life and in 1847 died in the naval service of Venezuela, had been "conceded " a pension of $20 per month by that government on account of such service. This pension was regularly paid up to May 31, 1856, to her, and thereafter to March 1, 1858, to her authorized agent, one Seth Driggs, to wit: $419.40 in cinco billetes de deuda antigua de Tesoreria sin interés, which he claimed to have lost. She died in said city November 4, 1863. The petition here was filed before the former Commission by said Driggs on behalf of her heirs-at-law, citizens of the United States, claiming the pension from May 31, 1856, till her death, with interest. There is no evidence before us that this claim was ever presented to the government of the United States or to its legation at Caracas beyond the fact of its consideration by the former Commissioners and umpire; nor is there any evidence submitted touching the merits of the claim.

The claim is not such as the treaty contemplates, and must be disallowed on that ground (see No. 12), even if there were no lack of evidence, and no difficulty about due presentation.

[blocks in formation]

At the threshold of this case there is a jurisdictional question which might give rise to serious difficulty if the claim. was well founded in other respects. By the terms of the Treaty we are only at liberty to pass upon such claims as were presented to the Government of the United States or to its Legation at Caracas before the first day of August, 1868. The papers in this case were submitted by the Legation to the old Commission on the 1st of August, 1868, but there is no positive proof that they had been presented to the Legation prior to that date, and by the strict terms of the language above quoted would be excluded. It appears, however, that they were mailed from New York on the 22d of June, 1868, to D. M. Talmage, the Commissioner of the United States, then engaged in the discharge of his official duty at Caracas, and in due course ought to have reached him in time to have been filed with the Legation before the first of the following August. Had they been transmitted to the Legation instead of Mr. Talmage we might have been willing to presume that they were received in time to come. within the terms of the present submission; but, sent as they were, there is no presumption to be made in favor of their timely receipt. The question, however, is not a very im

portant one, because on examining the papers and proofs submitted, we must reject the claim upon other grounds which go to its merits. The petition alleges that José Felix Garcia Cadiz was a citizen of the United States, and that he acted as agent for an agent of the Government of Venezuela to purchase arms for her forces then engaged in the war for independence, and that in the performance of this service he was caused to suffer a pecuniary loss which is variously stated, and in such a loose and unsatisfactory manner that we can neither discern the precise nature of his injury nor the extent of his losses. The contract under which it is claimed he was acting is not among the papers, nor do they supply the evidence by which we can ascertain its terms. It appears, however, to adopt the language of the petition, "that during the years 1810, 1811, 1812, and thereabouts, the said Cadiz was the agent of the Venezuelan Government in the United States, acting by request and under the direction of Don Juan Vicente Bolivar, then agent of Venezuela in the United States of America, and as such purchased arms, in the neighborhood of five thousand muskets, for the Venezuelan Government, at twelve (12) dollars each, for which he was obliged to pay in part, and on which he advanced considerable of his own money, and for which the said Bolivar as agent for the said Venezuelan Government agreed that he should be paid."

Reference is then made to a petition of his brother, Don Ramon Garcia, dated July 28, 1811, and the papers thereto annexed, as supplying the evidence which supports the averments of fact as above quoted. An examination of these papers shows that they consist of a letter addressed to someone as "Most Puissant Sir," and who, from the context, would appear to have been a person in high authority in Venezuela, particularly as the writer expects a great deal from the equity of this individual, whom, in the closing paragraph, he styles "Your Highness." This letter is dated "Caracas, July 28, 1811," and, although apparently written

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »