1 ¦.'• to U - rei I of • . ... relating to the mixed oomi-igisioB hela at £araeas in 1367-3, pursuant to fche treaty between the U.S .' and Venezuela. . . D. ¦. - islaiage. 8e« York, 1876. Venezuela C wv d676 de*?., . fprr Vie foivntting if. that I feel il my Aaty^ as 0Qe of the commissioners as sailed, to reply at length, and in doing so I propose to follow the report as nearly as possible in denying and refuting its charges and allegations. I shall stand by the record, and assert nothing which it does not substantiate. For a period of fifty years our countrymen, visiting or resident in Venezuela, or having dealings with that government, have been mal- treated, robbed and outraged with impunity, and still continue to be so treated; and from time to time the government of the United clairris-" States has demanded from that so-called republic indemnity for such acts of lawlessness and cruelty, but, as a rule, without avail; and the persistent refusal of Venezuela to accord justice to our citizens, and her disregard of the demands of our government, has not been, as stated in Mr. Springer's report, for want of ability " on account of the disturbed condition of that government and its financial embar rassments," but in keeping with its determinate purpose and policy Venezuela's of procrastination in the settlement of the claims of United States citizens. Witness records and correspondence in the State Depart ment at Washington and in the United States legation at Caracas. Minister after minister, commissioner and envoy, have time and again been sent to that country by our government to settle such claims, and at length,.as a final resort and effort in that direction, the United States government, in the year 1865 (through its then minister resident, the Hon. E. D. Culver), proposed a treaty, providing for tbe . A treaty at appointment of a mixed commission to examine and settle these length negoti- claims, some of which had been pending since the days of Bolivar.* e"- This treaty prescribes the manner of settlement, the character of the claims to be considered, and the powers of the commissioners, etc., etc. (See treaty in State Department, Washington.) Convention finally concluded at Caracas, April 25, 1866. Exchange of ratification of treaty, April 10, 1867. Convention proclaimed by President of United States, May 29, 1867. Act of Congress to carry out treaty, July 20, 1867. By treaty the commission should first meet to organize at Caracas four months from date of ratification. The City of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, S. A., was desig nated by the treaty as the place for holding the sessions ofthe com mission. The date of holding the first meeting, namely, August 10, 1867 (four months from the date of ratification ofthe treaty), and the time within which said commission should finish its labors, were also stipulated by the treaty. The commissioners, consisting of one on the part of each govern ment, were authorized to jointly appoint an umpire. The treaty says: "It shall be the duty of the two commissioners, at their first meeting, to appoint au umpire," etc. ; aud in case they should not agree in such selection they were to protocolize the two governments respectively, to that effect; and then the high contracting parties should jointly petition the representative of- either Russia or Switzer- * It was in the year 1865 that E. D. Culver, then United States minister resident in Caracas, concluded this treaty with the authorized representa tive of Venezuela, Senor Seixas. It was then agreed and understood that the treaty was to be laid before the Venezuelan Congress, and acted upon in the fall of that'year. But the Congress adjourned without taking action, as promised, thereby suspending the matter an entire year. land, at Washington, to appoint such umpire. To this umpire-were to be referred all cases of disagreement between the two commis sioners for his decision, and his decision was to be final. Under the law passed by the United States Congress for carrying out the treaty I was appointed commissioner on the part of the United States, July 20, 1867. My departure for my post was has tened by our government, from its earnest and expressed desire that I should be present in Caracas and ready to take part in the organi zation of the commission on August 10, 1867, the day appointed by --^^f.1.)^'! the treaty for the first meeting of the commissioners; but after my year began. arrival in Caracas I received written instructions from my govern ment to consider it the 17th of August instead of the 10th, as Vene zuela had so construed it, and consequently it was from this date (August 17, 1867) that the commissioners understood and decided that they had but twelve months in which to complete their work. The following passage in a letter from Mr. Seward, dated April 21, 1868, shows that in his opinion this matter was entirely in the con trol of the commission — that they were to be governed entirely by their own interpretation of the treaty : " While it (the United States Mr. Seward's government) understands the commission to have the power to con- opmion. [inu_ it_ segs;oa for a year from the time of its complete organization by the appointment of an umpire, the necessity and propriety of such action is regarded as exclusively within ihe judicial discretion of the tribunal itself, which it is improper for either government to influ ence (Report No. 787, Forty-fourth Congress, First Session, p. 150.) How this question — if question it be — can in anywise invalidate any act done during the existence of the commission, I cannot ima gine. Nor can the date of the adjournment be construed to have worked any injury. The treaty provides " that the commissioners shall finish their work twelve months from the date thereby fixed for the first meeting of the commissioners ;" and .this being the view held by the commission, and having fully considered and passed upon all , , , , . the claims presented, and having been notified by the United States All claims r > _ - considered be- legation at Caracas that none other than those presented were on file men?. & •,0VLm" ia said legation, they considered their work finished, and on August 5, 1868, they adjourned — twelve days only remaining of the time con templated in the treaty as necessary to finish their work, and these required, as the Venezuelan commissioner remarked at the time (see minutes of the commission), for the secretary, in which to complete the records of the work done, which records were to be passed to the respective governments. Mr. Springer says (I quote from his report) : " That Baron Stoeckl was defrauded in making the appointment of umpire there can scarcely be a doubt, when we consider all the facts and circumstances in relation thereto. Juan N. Machado, Jr., was a manufacturer of cotton candle- wicks, in Venezuela, and was also the agent of commissioner Tal- mage for the transaction of his private business in Caracas, acting under special power of attorney given him by Mr. Talmage. He had no legal attainments and no local reputation such as would suggest him as a proper person, etc. From all that can be learned of him, it appears that he was wholly unfit for the discharge of the important duties which were devolved upon him. It will be observed that no Chris tian name is given to the umpire by Baron Stoeckl, but in the confir mation of the appointment of the umpire, by ihe commissioners, the name appears in full as Juan N. Machado, Jr. This is the first appear ance in the record of the name of Juan N. Machado, Jr. It appears from the evidence of Mr. Munoz y Castro, that there were resident speci'ncationsof in Caracas, at that time, three persons bearing the name of Machado. pjre fraud** Um~ First, Dr. Filipe Machado and Juan N. Machado, Sr., who was father of Juan N. Machado, Jr., who became the umpire. Had Baron Stoeckl known of the existence of three Machados in Caracas, he would have designated in his appointment the one whom he had in his mind, and if he had intended to appoint either of the Juan N. Machados b.e would have designated whether he meant the "senior" or the "junior" — the only designation by which these two could be distinguished from each other "* In reply tp the above charge, copied verbatim from Mr. Springer's report, I submit the following, to wit : That Baron Stoeckl, the then Russian Ambassador at Washington, appointed Juan N. Machado, Jr., the umpire, on the 27th day of Feb ruary, 1868, and that the appointment of umpire would have been made much sooner, but for the neglect and delay on the part of the Venezuelan government to join with the United States government in such application, though protocolized for that purpose by the mystery '^de- commissioners, in October, 1867, and repeatedly invited and solicited lay explained. so to do by our State Department. Thus is the delay, so inexplicable to Mr. Springer (because he had not examined the record), accounted for by the inexcusable neglect of Venezuela to join with our govern ment in making tbe application to the Baron for that purpose.-^ The records show that Baron Stoeckl, in making said appointment," was not only not deceived, but intended to and did appoint Juan N. Machado, Jr., as umpire of the commission — the same who acted as such — and in writing communicated such intention and appointment to both governments, February 27, 1868 : that both governments accepted and approved of same, as the sequel will show, for each government thereupon notified its commissioner in writing that Juan N. Machado, Jr., was the perpon so appointed (the commission- * By referring to the printed correspondence between Mr. Crammond Kennedy and Mr. J. AV. Simonton, general agent of the Associated Press, it will be seen that the edition of Mr. Si ringer's report from which General Talmage quotes, was unauthorized and spurious, and that these specifica tions as to the alleged umpire fraud do not appear in the revised edition, which, after being read in the House, August 11, was printed in the Congres sional Becord, August 12, 1876. General Talmage received, in California, _ newspaper copy of what Mr. Kennedy calls " the campaign edition." + See Secretary Fish's letter to Mr. Kn.sell, United States minister at Caracas— a review of the whole matter. Appendix, p. 3. 8 ers could neither confirm nor reject tbe appointment), and, further, passed a note to said Juan N. Machado, Jr., informing him of his appointment, and requesting his acceptance of same. This must be conclusive evidence that the two governments knew the person intended and indicated by the Baron, and of their acceptance of him as such umpire ; and never until this late date (eight years after the adjournment of the commission) has it once been even intimated that there was any doubt on the subject, or any exception taken to such appointment, .much less any such technical or frivolous argument advanced as against the validity of the acts of the commission or the awards of the umpire. Weak, indeed, must be the cause and tbe Proof upon intellect that needs to fabricate such flimsy pretexts for its support, identity of the or tna* deals m suppositions and inferences in direct contradiction of umpire. the facts and the evidence ; inferences and suppositions which none but the vicious can conceive, and the fallacy of which no intelligent mind can fail to detect, and no honest man help but condemn. It is further in evidence that Florencia Ribas, who at the time of the appointment of the umpire represented the Venezuelan government at Washington, was well acquainted with Juan N. Machado, Jr., and, after his appointment as umpire, addressed said Machado a letter congratulating himself and his country upon so fortunate and suit able a selection, and makes mention of the influence he (Ribas) exerted to secure him such appointment. As Baron Stoeckl says in his official notification of bis appoint ment, Mr. Juan N. Machado, Jr., was " an impartial and respect able person ;" a gentleman of liberal education, resident for thirty- three years in the City of Caracas ; true, a manufacturer of cotton goods — holding the monopoly for manufacturing them from his gov ernment — well known and respeeted by the officials of the Vene- The umpire's zue'an government and his fellow citizens in Caracas. Born in high character Venezuela, educated at St. Mary's College, Baltimore, he was nrofi- andattain-ments. cient in both tbe Spanish and English languages, and had intimate acquaintance with the character and status of both governments and peoples. Of strict business habits and moral rectitude, he was known to both his government and its then agent (Florencia Ribas) at Washington as such a man. I never had the honor of any personal acquaintance with Baron Stoeckl, nor did I ever in any way attempt to influence his choice of an umpire. When he appointed Mr. Juan N. Machado, Jr., I had Mr. Talmage but little acquaintance with that gentleman, and what I knew of his ance, influence, character was from public report, which induced me (a comparative tion°wita1BMon stranSer in Caracas) to execute to him a special power of attorney to Stoeckl. protect my private interests when I returned temporarily to the United States in October, 1867, which power is recorded in the pub lic records at Caracas. Our relation to each other was not in any sense such as is sought to be established by the "Report," nor of such a character as in any respect to interfere in the slightest degree with the free and impar tial exercise of his judgment in the discharge of any of the functions of his office of umpire. In relation to the execution of this power of attorney (and that all there is of it may be known), out of which it is sought to make so much capital to discredit the umpire and reflect upon myself as commissioner, and in denial of the statements and inferences of Mr. Springer's report, to the effect that Mr. Machado had been and was my clerk and agent in the transaction of my gas business in Caracas, I submit the following facts : That in the year 1862 1 was engaged as a capitalist (not as mechanic or manufacturer) in the construction of gas works and railways in dif ferent parts of this country and in Venezuela; that I constructed the gas works at Caracas in the early part of the year 1862, and returned immediately to the United States after a residence of four months in Caracas ; that I was not the owner of said gas works, or in anywise interested in said business (the manufacturing of gas), which was con ducted by one Domingu'ez Ruiz, but simply held a mortgage on the works as security in part for the cost of their construction ; that I never again visited that country until I was (five years' afterward) appointed the commissioner on the part of the United States, July 20, 1868; that at that time I did not even know Juan N. Machado, relations Id the Jr., but was subsequently introduced to him in Caracas; that shortly umpire as Mr. after my arrival in Caracas, in 1867, 1 completed a sale of a half inter est in my mortgage to one Abraham Jesurum, a banker and capital ist of the island of Curacoa, under an agreement that he should secure the property, which he' did at a sale of said works at public auction; and thereafter he conducted the business under agreement as to my interest in the premises — all of which is a matter of record and was known to the Venezuelan government at that time ; and that it was in the conclusion of this business and sale lhat, on account of his reputed business standing and integrity, I executed to Mr. Machado (then a, comparative stranger to me, and of whose subsequent appointment as umpire I had not the least suspicion), a special power of attorney, which document was duly recorded at Caracas in the public records, and was known to the Venezuelan government at the time of the appointment of Mr. Machado as umpire. In view of the foregoing facts, I take it that no man of ordinary intelligence will attempt to justify the inferences drawn by Mr. Springer regarding the umpire ; either that Baron Stoeckl intended to appoint another man, or that there was anything in my relations with Mr. Machado that can throw _ shadow of suspicion on the awards which he made in his official capacity.* The most charitable presumption is that Mr. Springer never exam ined the subject and the records himself, or, conceiving that he could m g^-;----!,, see through a millstone at a glance, merely cast his eye on the docu- ignorance and ments in the case, many of which are in Spanish. It is evident that °re U ' 7' * See Mr. Fish on this matter. Appendix, p. 11. 2 10 he prejudged the commission, and was ready to believe the most incredible stories, no matter how nonsensical or scandalous, such as the "Seiior Machado" invention: and when he discovered his mis take, as he did in this case, after his report (Chicago Times edition) Mr. Springer's waa given out for publication, he did not denounce or forsake the men who had deceived him, and whose falsified documents are actu ally printed with his report;* but persisted in his hostility to the United Slates commissioner and the work of the commission, and on his own responsibility introduced his bill for cancelling the awards, which bill his democratic coadjutors had wisely refused, at that stage of the proceedings, to recommend to the House. Having been a democrat in politics all my life, I am sorry thai a demo crat was found to disgrace his party and belie the patriotic words of the Honorable Secretary of State, used in his masterly defence ofthe com mission and its work,f from which I quote : " The President looks with "deep anxiety at the attitude in which these recent notes from the Mr. F i s h " Minister of Foreign Affairs seem to place our sister republic of ezuela against "Yenezuela. He feels that the maintenance of confidence and attempting to "friendship between States is dependent on their respective obsery- tisans. " ance of international engagements and the performance of interna- " tional obligations. He will not allow himself to doubt that Vene. " zuela will disregard the assurances which, he learns from her repre- " sentative at this capital, have been made to tier from persons in this " country, of agreement in her views of her assumed right, and the " expectations, which he has reason to fear, are among the reliances " of Venezuela in her present attitude, viz., expectations of support " from those in this country who, in its internal policy, are not classed ' " as friends of the present administration. It is a great mistake if "Venezuela supposes that the political differences in the United "States can be used in favor of any foreign power, be that power " great or small, strong or weak. Political differences with us are lUre fth a6t " Str0n& but they relate t0 affairS at home' * * * Individuals neither party " with us, as elsewhere, may be disloyal, but neither of our political hono_tro_ the "-"^M-Scan be used for purposes hostile or antagonistic to the honor, the country. " dignity and integrity of the country at large. The foreign power "which may rely upon the party of the opposition in this country for " support against an administration on a question of foreign policy " in which are involved the dignity, the honor, or the fidelity to the "national interest, or to the national traditions of the government, " will find itself leaning on a broken reed which will pierce its own side." "The principle of arbitration for the settlement of international " difficulties commends itself strongly to the American people. As " this Government was the first among the great powers to introduce " this beneficent mode of achieving the peaceful termination of inter- " national controversies, it will be slow to be a parly even to thai which " will impair its efficacy or deprive it of its vital merit of finality." * See Appendix, pages 14, 15. t See Appendix for the full text of this official review of the whole subject. 11 " The objections which have been raised by Venezuela are " such as are often advanced by a disappointed litigant. they " should not, however, be allowed to invalidate ihe decision, and still " less will they justify a repudiation of that principle of international " arbitration which is so strongly recommended in the one hundred and il twelfth article of the Federal Constitution of Venezuela. * * * Both " parties have resorted to arbitration. The United States have not " assumed, neither can they suffer dictation, to control or set aside the "results of the tribunal to which both submitted their Tights. The6ll0r.^.s \\e " awards made and promulgated are definitive unless waived with the world-wideram- r ° locations of this " consent of both parties. Although a decision may be erroneous ; particular case. " and mistakes of fact and law may be made, although hardship, or " even injustice may be done for the dissatisfied party, on his own " motion, to reject the decision arid claim a rehearing involves not " only a breach of faith in the contracting party but is wrong to all nations, " in that it aims a blow at the only and essential value and efficacy " ofthe doctrine of peaceful arbitration." In the same State paper from which I have just quoted, Secretary Fish explains the delay in the appointment of umpire which seems to Mr. Springer " involved iu much mystery," and fastens the blame upon Venezuela (Report No. 787, Forty-fourth Congress, First Session, p. 38 ; see, also, p. 3, Appendix). By comparing the conflicting statements of the two officials of that government (Messrs. Ribas and Gutieres) it will be seen how delay was again secured by that dodging and dilatory power. Wow, in face of the incontrovertible facts set forth by Secretary Fish, why has Mr. Springer attempted to throw suspicion in this matter upon his fellow citizens and fellow servants of the government, and to secure for Venezuela the benefit of her trickery? Why should he treat the. Mr. Springer i i; n o r 6 s JVjLr. honest as if they were dishonest, and the dishonest as if they were Fish, and sland- honest? Why should he, an officer of the United States govern- ^_hl?_c?™*r^ ment, champion the cause of these foreign slanderers and would-be the records. repudiators, as if he were their hired attorney, and a pettifogger at that, in face of the truth, as stated officially by Secretary Fish and established by the records ? Again I say that it is charitable to sup pose that Mr. Springer has not even read the documents which have been printed with his report ; and it is but too clear that, in his hot haste for notoriety, he has not counted the cost, nor distinguished between infamy and fame. As to Springer's portraiture of myself, my previous occupation, character and qualifications, he appears to have made equally as great a blunder, and to have entirely mistaken my identity ; but con sidering the source of such foolish and malicious misrepresentations, I pass them by without comment, well satisfied that my work and its mi stakes the approval by three most distinguished Secretaries of State or theffi"^"^"™; United States (Seward, Washburn and Fish), and two Congresses, m a g e . will forever stand as my defence against his assault, and as an over whelming contradiction of his slanders. In view ofthe interest attaching to the appointment ofthe umpire, it may be of service to a better understanding of this part of the sub ject to briefly recount the delays and obstacles interposed by Vene zuela to prevent the appointment of an umpire, unless one of her own selection. Intending to force the reference of as many of the claims as possible to the umpire, the Venezuelan government insisted on the appoint ment of one of the foreign ministers resident at Caracas as umpire — one having claims in behalf of his own countrymen then pressing, and who for that and still more cogent reasons might be disposed to favor Venezuela's the Venezuelan treasury in aDy allowance to be made to citizens of ferine with1 the *^e United States — and who on this account, as I state'd in commission commission, as (see fne minutes), could not be considered strictly impartial. And to the umpire. v " J r yet Mr. Springer denounces my caution, and is at a loss to explain my motives in opposing any such appointment, which, nevertheless, will be readily comprehended by the unprejudiced and more practi cal mind, especially in the light ofthe following statements: At the time of my arrival in Caracas, Aug. 4, 1867, the govern. ment of Venezuela had not as yet appointed a commissioner, nor did it seem to care to appoint any, and on account of this disposition and delay on the part of Venezuela the commissioners could not and did not meet on August 10th, 1867, as provided by the treaty. The day named for the first "meeting of the commission having passed, I addressed a note to the Minister of Foreign Relations, and on August 19 received reply and official notification that the govern- A policy ofmentof "Venezuela had appointed General Antonio Guzman Blanco delay from the as its commissioner. To secure his cooperation in the organization of the commission I was compelled to address him several times in writing, soliciting action. The commission finally organized by ex change of powers, August 30, 1867. The private residence of Bianco was the place selected for holding the sessions of the commission. By the terms of treaty the first business in order was the selection of an umpire, and I proposed Mr. T. D. G. Rolandus, a gentleman eminently qualified for the position, and most highly commended in the latest report of the Venezuelan minister of Foreign Relations. Mr. Blanco expressed himself as not having any personal objection to such a selection, insisting, notwithstanding, as ho said, " by written instructions of his government," thai none other than one of the foreign ministers, either of England, France, Spain or Brazil, resident in Cara cas, could be such umpire, and all other persons, not holding diplomatic re- Mr Tiilmage laUoKS with thai government, would be ineligible. I contended that such denies the right a construction of the treaty was untenable ; that any person of lfntgov/ernme1ntresPeotabilityand capacity was eligible ; and denied the right of the ™™™i__?J?tlle Venezuelan government to interfere or dictate to the commission uvon this or any other matter clearly within the jurisdiction ofthe commission only. Pending this issue, Mr. Blanco excitedly and abruptly dismissed the meeting, and refused to hold further sessions of the commission, and referred me to his government for a solution of the difficulty. 13 I finally appealed to that government, and, in several written com munications on the subject, endeavored to show the correctness of the position I had taken. All such efforts failed, and my communi cations were returned to me, and I was forbidden further correspondence with that government. I then concluded to abandon further attempt T J1 % S°ye™- r ment first in to carry out the objects of tbe treaty, and to return to the United suits him and States ; of which intention, and the reasons therefor, I notified the Mm? ^^ t0 Venezuelan government in writing. Apprised of my intention, Mr. Blanco resigns or is removed ; and, at a later date, that government notifies me of the appointment of Francisco Conde in his stead, and that with him " all pending difficulties may be settled." Aggrieved by the many indignities already suffered at the hands of that government, and the impossibility of obtaining an umpire, unless I should submit to its dictation, I declined any official communication with the ,newly appointed commissioner, unless he should consent He insists on " that at our first meeting we determine to refer the appointment of appolntmentof umpire (as provided by the treaty in case of the disagreement of the umpire, as pro- ...,, - „-, . , vided in the commissioners) to the ambassador of Russia at Washington, two months treaty. or more having already elapsed in vain attempts to agree upon an um pire. The commissioner of Venezuela finally assented to my propo sition, and at our first official meeting, October 7, 1867, we protocol ized the respective governments to the effect "that the commission. ers were unable to agree in the selection of the umpire, and that the high contracting parties should avail themselves ofthe provisions TheVenezue- of the treaty applicable to this contingency without further delay." la.n commis- J L r - . . si oner agrees. Each commissioner was to forward a copy of the protocol to his government. The commission then adjourned, pending the appoint ment of an umpire, and I returned to the United States, and imme diately forwarded the protocol to the State Department at Washing ton, with full particulars of all my acts as United States commis sioner to date. For more than three months the commission waited for the ap pointment of the umpire; and meanwhile, on January 25, 1868, I returned to Caracas. Subsequently, on February 27, 1868, Baron Stoeckl, the Russian Ambassador at Washington, appointed as um pire Juan N. Machado, Jr., a citizen of Venezuela, and resident in Caracas, of which appointment the commissioners were notified in the early part of the mouth of April, 1868— eight months of the twelve months allotted for the work of the commission having been But the Vene- . zuelan govern- thus occupied. And this further delay was occasioned by the gross ment again de- neglect of Venezuela in not joining our government in notifying ,ays- Baron Stoeckl of her desire for the appointment of the umpire until urged thereto by repeated requests and appeals from our govern ment that she should do so.* All of this Mr. Springer might have known had he examined the records at Washington, and prevented the exposure of his ignorance and his grave mistake in attributing the delay to some "mysterious" and fraudulent agency guided * See letter of the Hon. Hamilton Fish, Appendix, p. 3. 14 by me. Venezuela was always for delay, and I was always for action. Mr. Thomas N. Stilwell was appointed United States minister to Venezuela while I was acting as commissioner in Caracas; but both he and Mr. Murray were strangers to me, and they arrived in Vene zuela in December, 1867, during my absence. Mr. Stilwell was a lawyer by education, a former member of Con gress, a resident of Anderson, Indiana, with the growth and pros perity of which place both he and his father before him appear to have been prominently identified. At home he was both honored and respected. He is now dead, but he has left on record in his Minister Stil- statement, which is printed with report No. 79, House of Represen- ..llo/Murray111" tatives> Forty-first Congress, Second Session, a complete refutation of the charges of his calumniators, to which reference may be had. Mr. Stilwell was at his post but little over thirty days during the sittings of the commission, and left Caracas before it had accom plished any considerable part of its work; and he had nothing to do with its proceedings except to accord to the claimants and the com missioners access to the documents on file in the legation relating to the claims which the commission was appointed to settle. And thus commenced my acquaintance with Mr. Stilwell and Mr. Murray, six months after the organization of the commission. The statement that we together, or with others, formed a " ring" for making money out of the claimants, by compelling them to em ploy Mr. Murray or anybody else as attorney, on a percentage of the andno "ring." amount to be allowedby the commission or umpire, is false ; and the man who repeats it as true is a liar, and the man who believes it without evidence is himself a swindler at heart, and knows he is for sale. Mr. Wm. P. Murray is, and has been for' several years, a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota. A lawyer by profession, a member of the fails'to summon City Council, and also State senator, he was accessible to the corn- Mr. Murray, but mittee, but for some reason Mr. Springer did not summon him to ap- nevertheless de- . nounces him. pear. Nevertheless " the honorable gentleman " has maligned Mr. Murray in that infamous report. As to Seth Driggs, the memorialist, into the truth of whose alle gations Mr. Springer was instructed to inquire, it is sufficient to say that he is the least believed where he is best known, and the numer ous contradictions in his statements prove his incapacity and imbe cility if not his rascality. He was awarded by the commission the thSeetmemo_lll sum total of $300.308-00> of which he received personally $150,- ist, unworthy of 308.00, and his attorney, Wm. P. Murray, the balance, according to an agreement between them, and their written instructions filed with the commission. He afterwards received from Wm. P. Murray, in the city of Washington, $50,153.33 in settlement of all differences between them, by which agreement (dated March 4, 1870), in evidence and printed with Mr. Springer's report, he vested absolutely the re mainder of his certificates in said Murray. And notwithstanding all 15 this, and the fact that he is or has been in receipt ofthe amount of $200,461 . 33 in certificates, he, at this late date, accuses me (whom he requested and empowered to carry out his agreement with Murray) of retaining his certificates, and he brings suit against me for and empowers $150,000,001 Such conduct can only be accounted for on the^^^^^rry hypothesis that he is out of his mind, or that he is in collusion with out an agree- -¦¦•„_, , , , ., ,,.,-. , ment, and then a corrupt "ring" to levy black-mail on me, and, by Mr. Springer's sues him for assistance, to delay the payment ofthe certificates, and so discourage doinSlt;- the holders that they will be willing to sell out for a song. They have been playing a long game with this for one of the possible results, but the false card which they put into Mr. Springer's hand, and which he threw down so triumphantly (thinking to take the umpire and all his awards), has ruined them 1 A few days after my arrival in Caracas, as United States commis sioner, August 4, 1867, Mr. James Wilson, then our minister resi dent in Venezuela, died of yellow fever. As the only official repre sentative of the United States government then present, I took, and by subsequent direction from Washington, retained charge of the Mr. Talmage legation until my return with the protocol in October of the same *^|s u^fe"! year. This gave me, in my work as commissioner, great advantage, States legation. as alone in the seclusion of the legation I could examine the record of years, and then and there for days and weeks I assiduously applied myself to obtain a thorough knowledge of tbe claims I was after wards to adjudicate, wading through the correspondence of the two governments for a period of over thirty years contained in the dusty archives of that legation. There, in striking contrast to the cruel impassivity of Venezuela, appeared the humble and earnest appeal of our citizens, asking redress for the grievous wrongs they had suffered, backed by the dignified and positive demands of our govern ment, but all unavailing to stir the equanimity of that weak but arro gant sister republic, whose history is replete with injustice and ,. treachery to foreigners. That record is full of events, the recital ofthe claims of which might well awaken the sympathy and indignation of every ^^"a^found American citizen. And it is to this record that I would refer " the in the archives. honorable gentleman from Illinois," when he talks about inflated and fraudulent claims. Go search the record, and then perchance you will not be false to yourself, your station, or your country. The treaty provided that these claims should be liquidated accord ing to justice. Mr. Springer seems to feel that none but lawyers could achieve such a liquidation, and that legal lore is necessary to the practice of equity. Seth Driggs knows better than that (see Mr. Springer's report, p. 62). But by what right does Mr. Springer pre- J TM^v^gS sume to question the wisdom of the governments of the United States disagree on oue and Venezuela, who both selected commissioners of practical business Question. experience to settle these claims and questions, which lawyers pre viously had only complicated and confused? The rule that claims had to pass through the United States lega tion at Caracas to reach the commission, was neither of Mr. Stilwell's 16 making or mine, but was in direct opposition to my wishes (as Wit ness the minutes of the commission), aud was suggested and finally insisted upon by the Venezuelan commissioner, Conde. And I believed and contended that all claims should be presented directly to the corn- elan commTs"" mission by the claimants or their attorneys, without any intervention sioner author of other than the stipulations ofthe treaty. And now Venezuela seeks the rule of which Mr. Springer to use this arbitrary act of her own commissioner to support her base complains. assertions of fraud against the United States officials. And Mr. Springer goes still a step further, and in direct contravention of the facts and tbe records, endeavors to fasten the originating of such a rule upon me, in collusion with Messrs. Stilwell and Murray, and from such false premises to argue collusion to defraud claimants. What next might we not expect? I deny the assertion that there was fraud of any character or nature practised by the commission, or that the claims allowed were fraudu lent. And in confirmation, I quote from the report which Senor Villa- fane, the commissioner of Venezuela, made to his government shortly The Venezu- after the adjournment of the commission : " In no instance could I sioner ° defends "observe anything reflecting upon the integrity of the commission, the commission. " or any member of the commission, or in anywise detrimental to the "interests of Venezuela; for, had I observed, in any instance, any " such flaw, I should have at once resigned and broken up the com- " mission." Subsequently, when two of Venezeula's ablest citizens were sepa rately solicited by that government to come to this country and con test the awards, they examined the records and consulted with clinftionsoftwo commissioner Villafane, and then positively refused to undertake such em i n en t citi- a disreputable service. Hence the selection of Mr. Munos y Castro, then zens of Vene- , _ . i zuela. a broker in New York city, who was totally ignorant of the record, and for that very reason was more likely to accept the office and do the dirty work. Did the Venezuela government, at the time of the sittings of the commission in her own capital, with every facility offered her, denounce these claims as fraudulent . Did she believe or even suspect them so ? Why, then, did she forward papers, proofs and documents relating to some of these claims on file in her archives, and in other cases withhold the evidence (despite the requests of the commission) Why did not f°r i"ear °f 'ts effect in establishing these claims and augmenting the nrove or trv \* award ? ^ is botn JU8t and reasonable to conclude that if such claims prove the claims had a fraudulent origin and character, it would have been discovered while the com- ]>J some one °^ l^e commissioners, or by the Venezuela government, niission was in at the time of their consideration by the commission. Certain it is E 6881 Oil r m no such objection was then advanced either by the commissioner or government of Venezuela. Nor could there have been, for at that time, apart from the proofs existing in the United States legation, there was sufficient proof in her own archives to establish both the origin and validity of these claims. These charges and assumptions were never advanced by Venezuela 17 until the first instalment was due. And since that time, during eight years, all her statements have been manufactured, and still she asks for more time to prove them. An indefinite postponement is what she desires. It is not probable that the United States government, after pressing these claims previous to the treaty, many of them through different administrations, will now admit that they are fraudulent, on the mere assertion of a power whose faith was pledged to abide by the arbitra tion. Venezuela knows that she has not the power to insult our of the United government, and so, to the sorrow.and shame of her noblest citizens, ^*°s S0Tem- she maintains this dishonorable course, or allows herself to be mis represented by persons who claim to act under her authority. I deny the right of any person, or either government, to again argue the merits ofthese claims. They were judicially and finally, and, I contend, fairly determined by tho mixed commission under the treaty, t10rl flnai, and there is no court of appeal.* There may be, and I doubt not, always will be difference of opin ion in regard to the awards of any international arbitration, but such differences cannot constitute grounds for annulling such decisions. And none other exist in this case. Mr. Springer further says : " In the statement made by Mr. Talmage, and sworn to by him, " and laid before the committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of " Representatives, under date of April 25th, 1870, to be found in "Report No. 79, Forty-first Congress, Second Session, page 7, he uses " this language : ' The attorney of the heirs of Jacob Idler (the first " ' claim presented) appeared before tbe committee, and offered to file iAnj5tller(/a^e " ' the claim for consideration. To this the Venezuelan commissioner Mr. Springer. " ' objected, and refused to allow any claim to be received or to be " ' considered by the commission, except when offered directly by the " 'respective governments, or through the United States legation at " ' Caracas, or to allow claimants to appear before the commission " ' in person or by attorney.' " The attorney mentioned in this statement was none other than " Mr. Talmage, as is evident from the power of attorney of Whiton " to him ; and from the fact that he, as attorney, appears upon the " record as withdrawing the certificates awarded to the Idler claim - " ants, amounting to the sum of $252,814 ; and from the further fact " that there was no other person in Caracas ever authorized to act as " attorney for those claimants. This claim was the largest allowed "by the commission, and which, as will appear, had little or no "merit in it," etc. It is unfortunate for Mr. Springer that the records of doings Of the commission on file in the State Department, Washington (which Mr. _,Mg ^ Springer, in his report, tells the public he has examined), completely disproved by the contradict the above statements, and establish one of two con- rec"" elusions, either that he did not examine this record, or, having ex- * See Appendix, pages 2 and 8. 3 18 amined it, misrepresented and perverted it, for reasons best known to himself. Forewarned, I was forearmed against the Venezuela government, and was thus enabled to preserve the continuity of the commission and to secure the object of the treaty, and again reach the United States in safety ; and further, to anticipate the exceptions and objec tions which the ingenuity and statecraft of Venezuela would suggest. But I must confess that I was entirely unprepared for the brayings of a fool or the desperate resorts of an ignorant partisan knave in this country. The assertion of Mr. Springer that I was the attorney referred to in my statement (above quoted by him) as appearing before the com mission and offering to fill the claim of " heirs of Jacob Idler " for consideration, is on his part an unwarranted and absurd inference as well as a shameless perversion of the facts, and his deductions are equally as faulty and fallacious, to wit, that because afterwards (at the special request of claimants) I, as United States commissioner, withdrew the certificates awarded in this claim, I must have been And denoun- su°k attorney, and that no other attorney appeared in the case. The ced by Mr. Tal- facts and the records both establish beyond question that there was surd inference an attorney in fact (and not Mr. Talmage), who, in behalf of said cation^86 fal)ri" claimants, appeared before the commission, offered to file said claim, and asked its consideration, and it was because such attorney did appear before the commission at the time, and for the purpose named, that the Venezuelan commissioner objected to the appearance or in tervention of any attorney, and insisted upon passing a rule to exclude all such — which rule was finally adopted, and the claim was subse quently forwarded to the commission through the United States legation without the further intervention of any attorney. There is no place here for the conjecture that Mr. Talmage was tbat attorney, nor is there any ambiguity in the language of the United States com missioner, but the simple fact as it occurred is plainly stated. As to the claim itself, it has all the force and validity which law, History of the equity and precedent can give it, backed by the oft-repeated request T(_1pT Plfl-TTl of the United States government for its settlement during a period of nearly fifty years, and of all those allowed it is perhaps the most meritorious. It has been on the file of the State Department at Wash ington, and the United States legation at Caracas for many years, and the subject of frequent diplomatic controversy between the two governments, and cannot, in any sense, be styled " a fraudulent claim." And yet Mr. Springer says it was, and "had little or no merit," and he advances the same arguments (and in almost the same words) as Venezuela used previous to the commission in controversy ¦ with our government, and which were by it refuted and denounced as wholly insufficient. || The executive branch of the Venezuelan government, of which payment was demanded many years ago by claimant, in conformity with the decree of its judicial branch of highest resort, refused com- 19 pliance, whereupon claimant memorialized the United States Con gress, and Andrew Jackson, then President ofthe United States, sent a special message to Congress on this subject, and Mr. Williamson was sent at that time as a special commissioner to Caracas, to demand by P re sTd en t payment of this claim, but his mission proved a failure on account of Jackson- his inability to cope with the cunning and diplomacy of Veuezulean officials. Again, in January, 1854, the claimant memorialized the United States Congress; and the committee of Foreign Affairs of the House And reported of Representatives, to whom the matter was referred, reported favor- _f T late^date ably thereon, both as to the character of the claim and the amount 57 th._! House , ._ __ Committee on due. (See Report No. 18, House of Representatives, Thirty-third Foreign Affairs. Congress, First Session.) This is one of the claims Mr. Springer calls fraudulent — a claim which the executive branch of the Venezulean government refused to pay, although its highest court had ordered the payment. I simply agreed in opinion with Venezuela's own former arbitrators, and courts of highest resort, in the allowance made to the claimant, adding thereto simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum ; aud because the umpire, to whom the elaim was sent for decision, could not help seeing the strength of my posi- And allowed tion, and allowing a sum approximating to that deemed to be due court of Vene- the claimant according td law, justice and precedent, both he and the zuela' United States commissioner are denounced by Mr. Springer in the name of the Foreign Affairs committee 1 Venezuela and Mr. Springer object to the claim of Beales, Nobles and Garrison, and allowance made therein by the umpire, and style it a fraudulent claim. In this claim copies of the papers and proofs on file with our government were prepared and certified by the State Department, and forwarded to the United States commissioner, with a letter from said Department calling his special attention to the ^^^s jjjobies claim. So it really had the positive written approval or endorse- and Garrison. ment of our State Department. Nevertheless Mr. Springer calls it ft fraudulent claim. Evidently he knows really nothing about it one way or the other; he simply takes, the word of Venezuela for it. The umpire, in his decision on this claim, reduced the amount claimed more than one half. Again, Venezuela and Springer object to tbe claim of " heirs of Captain John Clark." This claim was admitted by Venezuela, and said to have been paid to a certain Jew, resident in Caracas, who represented himself as the agent or assign of the heirs, in collusion with the then Venezuelan secretary ofthe treasury, and who, it is said, The _-aim of received half of the money, defrauding both the claimants and the Captain John treasury. Our government refused to recognize any such payment, and, as may be seen by its correspondence, since, on file in the United States legation at Caracas, refused to acknowledge any payment to the heirs, and continued to demand of Venezuela the amount ad mitted previously due by herself to the claimant; and such demand 20 was renewed from time to time previous to the sittings of the commis sion. Will Mr. Springer explain why the commission should not have allowed to an American citizen the sum admitted to be due him and demanded of Venezuela by his own government time and again? Why does he seek to rob the citizen of his rights ? It will not do to plead here either ignorance or the sophisms of Venezuela. Facts are stubborn things, and they could not be stronger in favor of an allow ance than in this claim. Again, Mr. Springer objects to the amount allowed by the umpire Gueflefmo1 E. to Clementia R. de Willet, widow of Guellermo E. Willet, and says Willet. the claim was raised by Mr. Talmage from an insignificant sum to the magnificent proportions of an international demand of $150,791.07, which assertion is proven false not only by the documents in said claim, which were on file in the United States legation at Caracas pre vious to the organization of the commission, but also by the evidence which he himself unwittingly has presented to the public, and to be found on page 152 of-his printed report in Schedule A, where, in a list of claims pending in the United States legation, November 14, Mr. Springer's 1.64, it is thus denominated: " No. 4, claim of Guellermo E. Willet, proved by evi- " for forcibly taking his store and goods by the government, in prmCtedwith his " August, 1859, and damages consequent thereon, presented with report. " proofs and documents on the 22d March, 1864, $150,791.07." This in a list of claims made and signed by E. D. Culver, United States minister resident, dated Caracas, November 14, 1864. What better evidence than this is wanted that the United States commissioner did not manufacture this claim or increase it, and that the umpire, when he allowed the claimant, in 1868, $141,000, did not exceed, but fell below the amount claimed by the United States minister resident, E. D. Culver, as due to the claimant in 1864 ? Per haps Mr. Springer, through ignorance, failed to observe that this claim for $150,791.07 of Guellermo K Willet (William being the English of Guellermo) was the same claim in which Clementia R. de Willet, the widow, was allowed by the umpire, $141,000. ADd so, in all his assertions as to the claims allowed, he has mistaken through utter ignorance of the facts, and boundless self-conceit. The fact that I have suffered such abuse, and that innocent and misconduct long suffering claimants have had their interests so prejudiced by ishedd be PUD" sucn a man' ia ttle Dame of one of tne most important committees of the House, will be suggestive to students of our current history, and should receive the attention of Congress. Mr. Springer says, in his report, " that two claims, aggregating over " half a million of dollars, were ignored or not passed upon on their Springer's false " nierits on account of the hasty departure of the American commis- charges denied " sioner." and disproved. This assertion is disproved by the records of the commission and denied by the United States commissioner. The two claims referred to did not amount to any such sum, 21 they received due consideration from the commissioners, and were dismissed for good and sufficient reasons. Mr. Springer further states " that no claims were allowed by the "commission except those which were represented by Mr. Murray " and Mr. Talmage, as attorney or attorney in fact, except the small " claim of Lorenzo H. Finn." This assertion, also, is untrue, and disproved by the records in the State Department at Washington, aud the published list of the awards. And by the records it is further shown that claims in which Mr. Murray was 'not acting as attorney, and with which Mr. ot^ stm an" Talmage had no subsequent connection, were allowed by the commis sion ; and others in which Mr. Murray did appear as attorney were disallowed by the commission. These facts Mr. Springer fails to men tion in his report, for reasons which must be apparent to all disinter ested persons. He also states " that ihe claimants who refused to "divide were for that reason ignored." This also is untrue, and is clearly disproved by the records. Mr. Springer also states, in speak ing of Mr. Murray, that "his fees for his professional services in these Anci stiu an. "cases were modestly fixed at one half of the sums to be awarded other. " by the commission, except in a few cases." Both the records and the evidence prove that in only one case did . Mr. Murray receive one half of the sum allowed, and of that he after wards returned thirty-three per cent. What shall be said of such gross misrepresentations, published in the name (if not with the authority) of the committee pf Foreign Affairs of the House of Repre sentatives? In his report Mr. Springer states that, as the attorney of the heirs of Ani_ still an- Jacob Idler, I presented his claims to the commission, and that I acted in the double capacity of judge and attorney. These assertions I indignantly deny, and challenge him to prove them if he can, either by the record or the facts. I simply accepted the trust to withdraw certificates for any award which might be made in this claim as well as in some others, and I only entered upon the discharge of such trusts after all the awards had been made and the certificates signed for delivery. Has Mr. Springer read the opinions of Mr. Fish on this part Of the controversy? If he has, I should rather have Mr. Springer's abuse Secretary Fish. than his praise; if he has not, I commend them to "the honorable gentleman's " consideration.* Mr. Springer further says: "Tour committee have examined the " records and proofs in the claims." I say he has not, and could not possibly have examined all the proofs and papers which were before Mr. Springer the commission, for many of these were inaccessible to him or the sibly have ex- committee, and even those accessible he did not examine ; and much J™1"® ? ds1 and of the documentary matter which he has printed is merely fragmen- jj^j^1™ | n ts tary aud is in part erroneous and falsified. He has collated and carefully arranged for effect all the statements and charges of Vene- * See Appendix, p. 7. 22 zuela and disappointed claimants, while he has suppressed much im- A comparison portant evidence in support of the awards, and never for once re- invited be- ferred to the official review ofthe case by Mr. Fish— an able, candid Springer's re- and conclusive analysis of all the questions really at issue between ?aryaFish'seCr.-tbe tw0 governments* Let an unprejudiced and discriminating view. public compare the utterances of an enlightened and sagacious statesman with the antics of a credulous and hot-headed partisan. and draw their own conclusion. Mr. Springer's questions to witnesses are so 'framed as to clearly expose his bias, and confirm the conviction in every disinterested mind that he had prejudged the case, and thus was a partial as well as an incompetent judge; and, worse still, for reasons best known to himself, he has changed the phraseology of his last three questions to me when a witness before him, and especially the first of these three, which I quote (as printed with his report), to wit : "Was it Mr. Springer " not a littl© strange that you, being a Democrat, should have obtained charged with » aa important an appointment as this from Mr. Seward, who was a, altering the re- cords. "very pronounced Republican V His question really was as follows : "Was it not singular that you, a contractor for building gas works " and railroads, should have been selected for the conduct of an in- "ternational arbitration, when there were so many lawyers and " others who were perhaps seeking the position ?" This alteration must have seemed necessary, even in his own opinion, to shield from the public gaze and condemnation his vulgarism and his at tempt to belittle honest employments, and must have seemed likely to create or excite partisan division and animosity. Mr. Springer says it was a crime and a shame for me, having been commissioner, to afterwards appear in Washington in defence of the work of the commission and the awards, or to oppose Vene zuela and others seeking to defraud claimants; that my receiving anything years afterwards as a gratuity for time, money and labor Mr. Talmage spent in this wise was criminal, and in his opinion reason for annul- tfons^perform- linS tne work of a Joiut commission completed years previous. Such ed after the opinion well comports with his late action against claimants ; both close of lis , ,. , . , ., , work as com- ot which are incomprehensible, except upon a construction quite as missioner. uncharitable as his own. I prefer my position. I considered it my duty to defend my work and my reputation, which had been assailed, and shall still do so to the best of my ability — zealous of my rights and my country's honor, both of which he would destroy. The last and basest assertion of Mr. Wm. M. Springer, whereby he has violated all the decencies of public and private life, regardless of truth, honor, or justice, is the following, to wit: "Mr. Talmage appeared before your committeee on the 2 2d of "June, 1876, and submitted a statement of his connection with the "mixed commission. A telegram had been sent to him inviting him " to appear before the committee, but it was never delivered to him, * See Appendix. 23 "and his appearance at the time was voluntary, as he had not been " served or officially notified to appear before your committee. "While in the city of Washington, on the 22d of June, the day of his " examination, he was served by a summons issued from the District " Court of the District of Columbia in a suit instituted against him in " that court. Upon his return to New York city, Mr. Talmage ap- " peared before a commissioner authorized to administer oaths and " take acknowledgments for the District of Columbia in that city, and A_fl cllarges "made oath that he was in attendance before the Committee on Mr. Springer "Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives of tbe United ^ss Tbe™8 * " States as a witness under subpoena at the time he was served with a 1 ' process in that case, and that he had no other or further business in " the District of Columbia except as a witness in obedience to said "subpoena. This affidavit, together with his plea to jurisdiction of " the court, will be found in the printed evidence in this case. This "fact is stated for the purpose of showing that Mr. Talmage has no " regard whatever for the solemnity of an oath." The facts, which are as follows, will show the foregoing to be both false and malicious, to wit : While in California, by advice and direc tion of my physicians, for the benefit of my health, which is seriously impaired, " I observed in the Associated Press despatches that Venezuela, May 4, 1876, had introduced into the committee of Foreign Affairs of House of Representatives a petition protesting The falseness against certain acts of our State Department, and again agitating thepr0^s jj,ydo__! matter of the mixed commission, of which I had been the United mentary evi- States commissioner. This induced me, early in the month of June, to go East, with the intent, should it be necessary, to aid in defeating the object of Venezuela by giving that committee every information in my power to a proper understanding of the subject. Upon my arrival in New Vork city I was informed that I had been summoned to appear before the committee of Foreign Affairs ; which summons was left, and was then at my residence, of which summons the fol lowing is copy, to wit : " The Western Union Telegraph Company. Dated, Washington, D. C, 23, 1876. Received at 3:05 P. M. To Hon. Dan. M. Tallmadge, Whitestone, L. I., N. Y. You are hereby summoned to appear forthwith before the Com mittee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. Accept service by telegraph. ' J.G.THOMPSON, Sergeant-at-Arms, 31, paid, Gov't rate." Is the above a summons or an invitation? And, in addition to the above I was sworn, and made a witness, and under examination as . 24 such by Springer, when the suit of which he speaks was instituted against me, and summons therein served upon me, at the committee room, during Mr. Springer's examination of me as a witness; and he tem- howMr Spring- porarily excused me, that such summons awaiting me at the door of the er aided the suit committee room might be served upon me. These are the facts, and r'sgB' ' they cannot be gainsayed, nor the truth of my affidavit in relation thereto impugned. These facts are stated to show that Mr. Springer has no regard whatever for the truth. Behold what a little provocation has whetted his tongue to calumny 1 And how does he use that weapon and his position ? Is it in honorable warfare as a soldier, or is it as the stealthy midnight assassin, or, worse still, as the vampires that followed in the wake of our army to prey upon the enemy, and steal cotton, while hard by on the field of battle lay the wounded, bleeding, dying soldier, to whom they would not give as much as a cup of water to slake his parching thirst, or a wad of their bales to scop his gaping wounds or pillow his dying head ; and who afterward, on their ill-gotten gains could stalk over Europe, and, perchance, after that, make a figure in the United States Congress 1 He met me at first with deception in his heart and a foul lie in his mouth, and, although he had summoned me to appear, he said the —Mr. Talmage committee did not specially need me, but he thought some of my Springer S with friends (enemies he meant) would be glad to see me before the com- duplicity. mittee ; and overnight he informed them of my arrival, that next morning they might be at the committee room to intimidate and browbeat me as a witness, and he the chief figure-head in thi3 nefa rious business*. From the beginning to the end of this chapter in our nation's his tory Venezuela has been the aggressor ; she has practiced prevari cation, fraud and chicanery, evasion and duplicity; she had the advantage in the commission, and by intimidation and fraud sought to interfere with its decisions, andhas ever since resorted to the most piti able pretexts to avoid compliance with her solemn treaty obligations, alleging fraud on the part of the United States commissioner. Thus And anneals for over seven years slle flas failed, to prove her assertions, although to Congress for afforded every facility and opportunity. And now, by a more propi- ddibe^ate a c - tious lDut none tne less criminal combination of circumstances and men, tion- she seeks to justify her default and evade her obligations. I have here tofore, and shall again appear as her antagonist, firm in the convic tion that rascality and treachery shall not triumph over justice and fidelity to public trust, nor any honest man upbraid me ; and I invoke the earnest effort of our administration, and the intelligent and de liberate action of the United States Congress in defence of the rights of American citizens and the finality of international arbitrations. D. M. TALMAGE. September 25,1876. * See Mr. Talmage's account of his treatment by Mr, Springer, published in the National Republican, Aug. 5, 1876. APPENDIX THE UNITED STATES AND VENEZUELA. THE CONDUCT OF THE MIXED COMMISSION, AND ALL THE QUESTIONS AT ISSUE BETWEEN THE TWO POWERS, Reviewed in _. Letter oe the Hon. HAMILTON FISH, Secretary of State for tlie United States, ADDRESSED TO THE HON. THOMAS RUSSELL, T.NITED STATES MINISTER AT OAEAOAS. f [No. 56.] MR. FISH TO MR. RUSSELL. Department of State, Washington, July 23, 1875. Sir: I have laid before the President your despatch No. 75, of the date of the 31st May, and your No. 77 of the date of the 15th June last, in which you communicate the demand made, in pursu ance of the instructions of the President communicated to you, for - T h e ^*esl ' the payment of the small sums, part of the reserved percentage of certain customs dues set apart for the discharge of the indebtedness of Venezuela to other governments, which tbe authorities of that state have deposited in the Company of Credit in Venezuela, and have hitherto refused to pay over or to allow to be withdrawn by the United States. In these despatches you also mention the refusal of the government of Venezuela to pay this money except on conditions Venezuela im- incompatible with the dignity and self respect of this government, £e°a conditions"" and in practical violation of the solemn obligations of Venezuela un der the treaty. The President has received the information thus communicated with profound regret. He had hoped that Venezuela would have perceived the gravity of persistent and continued disregard of its obligations and of its pledged faith. Prior to tbe year of 1866 the government of the United States had Cia;m9 ot iong for a series of years had occasion to urge upon that of Venezuela the standing. consideration of the claims of many of its citizens. 4 2 MR. PISH REVIEWS THE CASE. On the 25th of April, 1866, a convention was entered into between .... .. the two republics, the preamble of which recited a hope to " secure agreed upon. at least some of the advantages attending arbitration so strongly re commended in Article 112 of the Federal Constitution of Venezuela. " This convention submitted for examination and decision all claims on the part of corporations, companies or individuals, citizens of the United States, upon the government of Venezuela, which might have been presented to their government or to its legation in Caracas, to a mixed commission consisting of two members, one of whom was to be appointed by e_eh government. The commissioners were to meet Claims to be within a specified time in the city of Caracas, and to take a solemn mixed commis- oata l0 carefully examine and to impartially decide, according to jus- sion- tice, and in compliance with the provisions of the convention, all claims submitted to them. They were then to proceed to appoint an umpire to decide upon any cases concerning which they might disagree, or upon any point . . of difference that might arise in the course of their proceedings, and An umpire to be chosen. the convention provided that if they could not agree in the selection, the umpire should be named by the diplomatic representative, either of Switzerland or of Russia, in Washington, on the previous invita tion of the high contracting parties. The convention further provided that in cases where the commis sioners agree to award an indemnity they shall determine the amount to be paid, and issue certificates of the same ; and in cases where they could not agree, the points of' difference were to be referred to His decision to the umpire, whose decision should be final. The commissioners were to issue certificates of the sums to be paid to the claimants, respect ively, by virtue of their decisions or those of the umpire, and the ag gregate amount of all sums awarded by the commissioners and by the umpire was to be paid to the government of the United States in equal annual payments, to be completed within ten years from the date of the termination of the labors of the commission, the first pay ment to be made in six months from the same date ; and semi-annual „ , interest was to be paid on tbe several sums awarded at the rate of How awards „ „ , ¦ , „ , were to he paid, nve per cent, per annum, from the date of the termination of the labors of the commission. The commission was required to terminate its labors in twelve months from the date of its organization. Duration and Article V of the convention provided that the decisions of the mission theC°m" commisaioners an|l of the umpire should be final and Conclusive as to all pending claims at tbe date of their installation. The commission was organized on the 30th day of August, 1867, ,,„__.. the American commissioner having reached Caracas and informed Kj u ill Li 1 1 S91 0 __. organizes. the government of Venezuela of his arrival and of his readiness to enter upon his duties on the 6th of that month. The commissioners were not able to agree upon the umpire pro- Pails to agree vided for by the treaty, the United States commissioner having pro on an umpire. ,_oged Mr. Rolandus, the Consul General of the-Netherlands, and Mr. Antonio Guzman Blanco (the Venezuelan commissioner, and at pres- MR. PISH REVIEWS THE CASE. 3 ent President of the Republic), being instructed by his government to propose either the English or the Spanish charge" d'affaires at Caracas. Shortly afterward Mr. Francis Conde was appointed Venezuelan commissioner in the place of General Guzman Blanco, and it was then Refers the ap- agreed to refer the appointment of the umpire to Washington, as Cshk^ton. *° stipulated in the treaty. Mr. Florencio Ribas was then the charge d'affaires of Venezuela in Washington, but when Mr. Seward (my predecessor) applied to him on the 7th of November, 1867, Mr. Ribas stated that he had no instructions on the subject. Mr. Stilwell, the United States minister at Caracas, was then instructed to inform the Venezuelan govern ment of Mr. Ribas's reply, and to .urge that government to unite ca°e^?tndthe with this department in requesting the diplomatic representative of Russia at Washington to make the appointment, in accordance with the treaty, as Switzerland had no diplomatic representative here. Mr. Stilwell was informed by Mr. Gutieres, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that on the 12th of October previously instructions to that effect had been forwarded to Mr. Ribas. It was not, however, until the 6th of February, 1868, that Mr. Seward could obtain an interview with Mr. Ribas, on which, day they united in a joint official note to Mr. Stoeckl, asking him to perform the function assigned him by tlie convention, of naming an arbiter. In a note ofthe 27th of February Mr. Stoeckl informed Mr. Sew ard that he had endeavored to act in the matter in a way worthy of The Russian the confidence reposed in him ; and that, after due inquiry, he had points Juan Ma." determined to appoint Mr. Juan Machado, Jr., as the umpire, he be- <*ado. Jr-> um- ing an impartial aud respectable person in the highest degree. In this selection the Russian minister appears to have acted upon his own information and judgment, and to have set aside the persons who had been named by the representatives of the respective gov- The two pow- ernments, both of which acquiesced in the appointment made by the ers ac1nieece- Russian minister, and proceeded with the business before the com mission now thus fully constituted. The commissioners jointly adopted rules and regulations, which are set forth in the minutes of their proceedings, which are similar to those adopted in other cases, and do not appear to contain anything of an unusual or unreasonable nature. On the 7th of May, 1868, Mr. Jose' Gregorio Villafane was ap pointed Venezuelan commissioner in the place of Mr. Conde, resigned. There were forty-nine claims presented to the commission and acted upon by them or by the umpire. The aggregate amount of these forty-nine claims was $4,823,273.31. value of claims The commissioners agreed in their opinion in thirty-seven of these e^and'reiected forty-nine cases; they entirely rejected twenty, and made awards in the other seventeen, to the amount of $459,188.30. The aggregate amount rejected by the concurrent agreement of the commissioners was $2,990,297.07. 4 MR. FISH REVIEWS THE CASE. In twelve cases the commissioners disagreed and referred them to the umpire, who rejected five and made awards amounting to $794,- 122 in the other seveo. The amount of the claims rejected by the umpire was $579,665.94. At the termination of its labors the commission closed, on the 5th. day of August, 1868. The commissioners, in accordance with Ar ticle III of the convention, issued certificates of the sums to be paid to the claimants, respectivelv, to the aggregate amount of Both commis- sioners sign eer- ,^1,253,310.30. tificates for the The oertifiCates were issued for the awards made by the umpire as umpire's awards ' , well as those made by the commissioners, and were signed by Mr. Villafane, tbe Venezuelan commissioner, as well as by Mr. Talmage, the United States commissioner. . Several claims were rejected which were believed to have merit and to be entitled to large awards, and the claimants have urged this Government to renew their presentation. But the United States The "United felt that the faith and the honor of both governments were pledged the'-esuUs16 ^ to reSard 'be decisions of the commission as final and conclusive as to all claims submitted to its consideration, and, therefore, has resisted the importunity of somo most valued citizens who wished a repre sentation and rehearing of their claims. I am not aware that any objection or remonstrance was made on Ian commission- behalf of the Venezuelan government, or that any hesitation was er signs the eer- exhibited by the Venezuelan commissioner, to the signing or issuing objection. of these certificates, either as to the amount or as to the number of the certificates which were issued. No complaint on the part of the Venezuelan government against the proceedings of the commission appears to have been made until Venezuela de- a(,ter ^e nrst installment became payable, accoiding to the terms of faults on the the treaty. and th e n ob- On the 5th day of February, 1869 (being six months from the date jects' of the termination of the labors of the commission), a payment of one-tenth of the aggregate amount of the award (viz., §125,331.03), and one half year's interest at 5 per cent, on the award (viz., §31,332.75), was due and payable to the United States. On the 8th day of February, 1869, Mr. Munoz y Castro presented to my predecessor, Governor Seward, his credentials as charge d'af faires of Venezuela, and then was the first complaint heard of the decisions of the commission. Instead of tendering payment of the amount then due, or of as signing the disturbed condition of the finances of the country as the reason, or any other justification of the default of the Venezuelan vague? eCtl°nS g°vernment in making provision for the payment, Mr. Munoz y Castro proceeded immediately to say that tlie late claims commission had committed irregularities so gross that they annulled their awards. He neither assigned nor mentioned any special error or irregularity, and when reminded of the absence of any charge, he seemed to re cognize that as it takes two parties to make a convention, it equally MR. FISH REVIEWS THE CASE. 5 requires tbe consent of both parties to abrogate it, and stated that he expected to furnish the proofs, and he trusted that he should bo able to- convince the United States government that the proceedings of the commission were illegal and ought to be set aside ; thus not ise^°0fS Pr°m' only engaging to furnish proofs, but admitting what could not be questioned, the right of the government of the United States to con sider and determine the validity and the force of his arguments and of the allegations in their support. On the 12th of February Mr. Munoz y Castro presented to Gov ernor Seward a note purporting, under instructions from bis govern ment, to present " certain acts of the mixed commission which have seriously injured Venezuela, by an evident violation of right, and in sult to justice." He then mentions and takes exception : I. To Mr. Talmage's conduct in the selection of an umpire. II. To the regulations for the proceedings of the commission. III. That after award was made, " whether by the commissioners or umpire, as many certificates of fractional sums as each claimant desired " were issued. IV. That Mr. Talmage attested a document in which a lawyer and Mr. Murray (whom Mr. Munoz y Castro thought fit for some purpose inaccurately to designate as secretary of the American legation) agreed to divide certain fees for attending to business before the Charges speci- . • fied by Mr. Cas- commission. tr0) aid _efuted V. That he "openly declared himself the representative of the tr Mr- K8Q- party in whose favor he had decided as judge," and in support of this statement say that he "claimed the certificates issued to the heirs of Jacob Idler, Seth Driggs, Clementia de Willett, and Ralph Rawdon." VI. That "in no case did he object to tbe largest claims, and often said they were too small." VII. Recurring again to the first allegation, A- D- 18,?6> and of the independ- : of State. : ence ofthe United States of America the one hundred and first. (Signed) HAMILTON FISH. Washington, le 27 Fevrier, 1868. A 1' Hon. William H. Seward, &c, &c, Ac, Monsieur le Secretaire d'Etat: Par votre office, en date du 6 Fevrier dr., vous avez bien voulu me communiquer copie d'une convention conclue entre les Gouvem- a true copy of ments des Etats Unis et de Venezuela, pour regler par arbitrage eer- Baron Stoeckl's taine reclamations. Dans cette convention il a ete' stipule, que dans le cas ou les deux Commissaires, nomines respectivement par les deux Gouvernments ne s'entendraient pas sur le choix du troisieme arbitre, celui-ci serait designe par moi, en qualite de Representant de Sa Majest. l'Empereur de toutes les Russies. J'ai cherche a justifier la confiance que les deux Gouvernments ont bien voulu placer en moi, en nommant pour troisieme arbitre un homme d'impartialite' et de respectabilite, et j'ai design, Mr. Juan NI juan jf jfa- Machado, Junior, qui, d'apres les informations que j'ai prises, r_unit S^P'^ Jr" -ap" ces qualites au plus haut degre". J'ai informe' de ce choix Mr. Ribas, charge d'affaires des Etats Unis de Venezuela, qui l'a acceuilli favorablement. Veuillez agreer, Monsieur le Secretaire d'Etat) l'assurance de ma tres haute consideration. STOECKI-" YALE