The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-04-02
NEW PHASE
 IS SET OUT Startling Statements of Venezuelan Court. TEXT OF THE DECISION Interesting Things Regarding
 Asphalt Trust. Mention is Made of Mysterious sasv< ernment's Relations, Account on
 Books of . New York
TEXT OF THE DECISION

Washington. April 1.--Senor vsIo1 Goiticoa, Charge d'Affaires of Venezuela. called today on Acting Secretary Adee and handed to him. as mere matter Of reference, translation Of tho de- cfsion of the Federal District Superior court, rejecting the motion to dismiss made by the New York and Bermudex Company in the action against this company by Venezuela to compel 1t to pay damages to Venezuela for it's par- ticipation in the revolution called Tie bertadora."
 The text of the decision contains some interesting and rather startling statements. the facts set out being In substance as follows:
 ''The Attorney General for vene<ueia. September 22, 1904. brought suit against the New York and Bermudez Asphalk Company in the person of Robert Kemp Wright. it's resident representative, for damages by reason of the company's participation in the last revolution. Mir. Wright pleaded that even if the hypothesis were true( which he denied1. there was not ground for action. be- cause. under Article 123 of the Penal Code, in case of crimes against tho national powers. any and all proceeds ings cease upon the re-estabIishment of public order. wherefore he moved to dismiss the suit.
  eral, the court of first instance rejected the motion to dismiss. and ths case came before the Superior Court Of the Federal District on appeal. In passing upon this motion. that court remarked In substance that:
 Federal Courts Opinion.
 Upon the definite conclusion of the alliance between the New York and Bermudez Company and General Ma tos. the chief of the revolution. when the latter was in New York, in Juno. 1901. the company began to supply him with the necessary funds to carry on the campaign. President Francis e. Greene of the Asphalt Company went to meet General Matos in Paris in July to. contract for the purchase uf steamer and other necessary eIe~ ments of war. Greene went to London and Glasgow to examine several steam CTS on sale and returning to Paris lie drew through the Credit Lyonnais. on the Seaboard National Bank of New York. of which bank Greene was director and where the trust to which the New York and Bermudez Company belonged kept its account. This draft. amounting to $100. 900 was ordered to be paid by MT. Sewall, Secretary of fhe trust. who directed his cashier to charge that amount to an account uf1- der the name of governments refa- tions' which contained without details all the money expended on Venezuela, A few days later draft for $Sos000 was drawn, paid and entered in the same manner. A few months later. as the results of Greene's work in Eu- rope, the fatally celebrated steamer Banrigh, whose history of piratic dep- relations is known to all, came to the coast of Venezuela, carrying an in- mense amount of munitions of war and oeA hA n Wa olution.
 Company Persistent.
 "The wonderful campaign during which the present chief executive rout- ed the armies of the revolution, was not sufficient to convince the company of the total failure of it8 plans nor to make it aban- don It's purpose, because after the celebrated battle of La Victoria the company continued to aid Mates, thus prolongIng an iniquitious war, which increased the sufferings of the nation and left 1t almost exhausted and de- fenseIess to foreign oppression.
 Without attempting to pass upon the subject matter of these charges, the Appellate Court, confining itself to the motion to dismiss, filed by the company held that the right of civil action ex- ists independently of the penal action and the cessation of the revolutionary armed movement did not necessarily imply or embody the actual fact that the distributing force had been destroy ed, or that such force might not exist in a latent paramount duty of watch- ing for Its subsidy. The civil action did not mean the abrogation of the amnesty granted by the State in crim- ineI cases. so the motion to dismiss tha action Is denied with costs against thss