New-York tribune., 1908-04-01
THE VENEZUELAN CASE
Continued from first page.


/
spondence shows they received scant consideration
On that account Mr. Root addressed another letter
10 Mr. Russell. dated June q. 1907 calling atten-
ton to the demands for aricable adjustment or
| the controversies by means of international arbi-
traton. made in February Commenting upon Ven
ezuela's failure to take cognizance of the Ameri-
can note Mr. Root in this letter said:
The answer the venezuelan government makes
| ton. 1t is practically confined simple denial
OF the Of the attitude of this govern
/ it ignores dismisses the serious and respect
ful Of the 9itsd states 3 ProdgGes s
/ spect. With patience, however. which has char
Tnfted States in fhe past in all it's relations to
Venezuela. the Department of State again in
! structs you to reiterate the views expressed IN
! the Instructions of February rs last and to make
| the following brief reply to each Of the points
| raised by the memorandum of Venezuela
The claims are again reviewed and Mr.. Root
ends his letter follows:
As 10 each and every one of the aforesaid cases.
in case you shall not receive prompt and favor
able reply from the government Of Venezuela you
will expressly and formally propose TO the gov
that government in respect thereof be Submitted
to arbitration before the permanent court Of ar
prefer before tribunal Of three jursts, not
IN the usual manner
On February 49, 1905. Secretary Root dispatched
cable dispatch Minister Russell instructing him
TO ascertain whether the refusal of Venezuela to
accept our proposal of arbitration is designed to
II she is ready TO arbitrate any of these claims,
which ones she is willing to srbitrate''
The reply of Minister Russell to this cable dis
patch is the final paper in the of correspond
ence relating to the whole subject of the efforts Of
the United States government TO secure an ami
cable adjustment Of the claims of American citizens.
Mr. Russells cable dispatch sent from Willemstad,
February %, 1905. is follows:
The Venezuelan government answered today nv
OF instructions OF February IS. Minister for For
Thur vr,alo
considering for the present the question of arbi-
nlents in notes OF July and September 2o in
Wlcn m nofes EenezgSa plainly stated the grounds
cases referred to cannot be considered being
action the government Of Venezuela would TeW
i with satisfaction If the government of the United
parties interested always having the right of re
course 10 the tribunals of justice the republic
should they deem it fit.
FIVE SUBJECTS OF DISPUTE
A memorandum compiled by Mr. Scott the So
iictor OF the State Department. gives exhaustivey
the facts and law in each OF the five subjects OF
dispute between the American and Venezuelan
governments This memorandum. which occupies
nearly two hundred printed pages, forms part
Of the volunlinous record OF the five cases which
Secretary Root transmitted TO the Senate in
sponse 10 resolution OF Senator Lodge
The case OF the expulsion from Venezuela Of A
F. Jaureut. naturalized American, in November.
1904. is first discussed Jaurett compelled to
leave Venezuela. where he had lived for eight
years. without warning and under a twenty-four
hours notice. the ground that his presence
notor1ously pre- judicial public order
Besides being consul for Panama, Jaurett was the
correspondent of several foreign newspapers. and
interested in the publication of a paper in
Caracas He was not allowed to wind up his busi-
and private affairs and claims damages on this
the extent of s250oo.
The diplomatic correspond ence in this case shows
that the department espoused the claim of Mr.. Jau-
rett from the beginning, and has insisted upon a
settlement. but Venezuela has refused 10 comply
with this insistence. In his of this claim
Mr.. Scott this vigorous language;
IN view Of all the facts Of The case the deter
Of the claim. whether II be tested by the policy
etbnrf+v nv n. decision of mixed courts or bv
the Judgment Of International tribunals it must
er than that employed IN 2 request; a demand
FOR the settlement Of the claim in full. and if the
demand be met with procrastnation or refusal. the
prompt and vigorous action.
The claim Of the Ortnoco Corporation. which the
State Department contends should he the subject
OF international arbitration arises from repeated
concessions granted by Venezuela various strang
ers the territory which the Orinoco Corporation
possesses under concession granted in 1885. The
concession grarted to c c Fitzgerald. a Aneri-
can. the exclusive right for ninety-nine years 70
develop the resources Of a certain portion Of the
delta OF the Ornoco. These resources consisted
Of iron mines and asphalt deposits. The opinion
Of the department in this is that action Of
the Venezuelan executive is in derogation Of re-
peated judgments of the Venezuelan court of last
resort and of the fnterna tional court Of claims
For this tort willfuly committed by the executive
there only be diplomatic redress unless the
Venezuelan executive should abide by tne decision
of the and cease to noest the vested rights
the corporation"
In the next case that Of the orinoco Steamship
Company a New Jersey corporation the broad
question is involved When may the decisions Of
of this company, amounting to s,4ol55s was sub
mitted to mixed tribunal for arbitration in ac-
cordance with an agreement with the American
and Venezuelan governments The umpire who
presided the arbitration tribunal dfsaIIowed
the major portion of the claim and granted an
award to the company of s2S229
This decision is declared by the State Department
abound Of law and fact, and to exhibit
tone which is nOn-judiCial in character II is
pointed thai all authorities on international
law agreed that in certain cases the awards
OF tribunals of arbitration may innpeached and
rehearings probably obtained The claim grew
out Of what the company regarded as an exclu-
sive franchise to navigate certain channels of the
OrinOeo River. The umpire held that this fran
chse not exclusive. He also held that the
claimant had contracted itself Of its diplo-
matte remedy which is declared 10 he not only
erroneous, but in direct disregard Of the terms of
the protocol The third reason for disr7issing the
claim that notice had been given the Venez-
uelan government of the transfer of the conces- /
sion This reason also is condemned by this gov
eminent bad
To the demand Of the American government that /
this claim be resubmitted to arbitration the reply
has been made: The Venezuelan government /
would consider il offence the honor of
Dutch and Dutch umpire Harry /
Barge, decided claim. The Venezuelan /
government could not agree this. a. the sover-
eighty and Independence OF the nation would he
impaired"
THE CRITCHFIELD CLAIM