Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-08-19
As Previously Passed Upon.

prior mixed commissions the umpire finds
that the American and Mexican commits
slons of 1851 and 1868, the Spanish and
American commission Of 1871, and the
American and British commission of the
same year have all refused claims of this
nature, save as particular circumstances of
negligence might be shown to exist and
the Spanish treaty claims commission has
laid down the same rule
Among International law writer's whose
teachings tend in the same direction the
umpire enumerates and cites Wharton Obi
gest of International Law, Hall, Blunt
schli. Escriche. Seijas. Despagnet, Calvo.
Tchernoff and Fiore.
The umpire next refers to the only cases
cited contra, four in number, finding in
them uncertainty or qualifying facts.
Quite at length is discussed the particular
relations between Italy and Venezuela for
the purpose of showing that prior to the
present protocols creating the mixed COM
mission Italy could not have claimed
against Venezuela. save for damages in
flicted by the constituted authorities, and
then only as VeneZuelans were entitled to
relief, and that Italy's present measure of
recovery was only to be determined by the
new protocols interpreted in the light of in
ternational law and without reference to
the protocols of other nations.
Under Present Prtocol.
Discussing the protocol under which Ven
ezuela admitted responsibility for injury to
persons and property and wrongful seizure
of the latter, the umpire holds that it
meant legal injury, involving wrongful or
presumed wrongful intent on the part of
Venezuela toward the person injured and
that Venezuela did not by it admit re-
sponsibility for any wrongful act committed
without her wishes by other persons (revo-
futionists included) toward Italians. He
expresses the belief that Venezuela having
heretofore denied responsibility to anybody
save in her own courts, and there only in
a restricted manner, the above interpreta-
ton would meet all necessities and that
even if the Interpretation were doubtful,
one should be sought in accordance with
the rules of international law, which deny
the responsibility sought to be imposed,
while according to WoolSey, Wharton, Pra-
der Fodere and Vattel if doubt be ad-
| mtted it should be resolved against the
party for whose benefit it was inserted Gin
this case Italy, in favor of the party
cepting the condition (VeneZuela) in the
least onerous manner for the party obli-
gated (Venezuela) and against the party
which could and should have expressed it.
| self clearly Qtaly).
In answer to the suggestion that the
usual rules of international law should not
| be applied in favor of Venezuela. as it is
| a land subject to frequent revolutions, the
umpire says that as between two nations
| through whose joint action he exercises his
| functions he can indulge in no presump-
| ton lowering to either. He is bound to
assume equality of position and equality of
| that if in any case of reclamation sub
mitted to him it is alleged and proved
that the Venezuelan authorities failed to
exercise due diligence to prevent damages
/ from being inflicted by revolutionists, that
country would be held responsible
To the suggestion that, equitably. suf
ferers from wrongs committed by revoiu-
tioniSts should be compensated by the gov
eminent, he finds that ION the other hand
it would be inequitable to charge gov
eminent for wrongs 1t never committed"
and that the true Interpretation of the
protocol required 1.-The present tribunal.
| disregarding technicalities, to apply equi-
| tably to the various cases submitted the
well-known principles of justice, not per-
hitting sympathy for suffering to bring
about a disregard for law"
Much Comment in Caracas.
The decision above distracted has been
| the subject of a great amount Of attention
| in Caracas, as perhaps settling for the Ital-
| ian commission at least the most impor-
| tant question before nine Of the commits
sions now meeting in that city. The indi-
| cations are that the general principles
| recognized by it will also receive the sane
| ton of the American, English and Neither
| lands commissions. The umpire for the
German commission, General Duff1eld, has
| upon his construction Of the German pro-
| tocoI held Venezuela to responsibility for
| acts of revOlutionists committed against
property only, in the revolt just terminated,
although denying her liability in justice,
equity and international law. Mr.. Filz, the
umpire for the French and Belgian COM
missions, has held Venezuela to full re-
sponsibility. but without giving any rea-
I sons. The umpires Of the Spanish and
ESwedish and Norwegian commissions have
not yet determined the matter.
! It Is unfortunate that uniform rule has
not been reached in Caracas. The advo-
fcates Of full responsibility urge that I'M
der the rule above given revOlutiOniStS will
preferably seize the property of foreigners
| to assist their operations. On the other
hand, it is insisted that even If this were
DONE the government would be respon-
| sible If the revolution succeeded, while IL
| foreigners understand that only in the
event Of success can they hope to recover
damages they will be less eager to assist
revolutionists. 1t Is notorious that the as
sistance of foreigners has counted for much
| in recent revolutions, although they can
WELD powerful influence for peace.