OCR Text |
Show I Venezuela's Side of I American Claims I i Public Here Misinformed as to Her I I Contentions, a Friend of the I Country Says. ,: From the New York Times of Sun- H day, July 19. H Venezuela's side of the controversy H which has culminated Id the sever Hjj ance of diplomatic relations with the H United States has been ouly meager))' H j presented through the press to the H American public, according to some H of those having knowledge pf both H sides of the controversy. H In the opinion of a lawyer in this bw ciiy mio is tnorougmy laminar wim H the cases in which arbitration is de- H manded by the United States govern- H ment, the American public is almost H entirely ignorant of the contentions H upon which Venezuela bases her atti- H tude on the questions at issue. H This lawyer shares with others who H have closely followed the Yenezulan H controversy the opinion that it should H be understood that Venezuela bases H her stand in the matter on grounds H which her government considers right H and legal, and Is not merely refusing H to behave with common decency H toward the United States, as is very j generally supposed In this country. j The lawyer in question gave his V views on the subject to a represent!!- 1 tlvo of The New York Times and H showed documents on the various i American claims which have brought 1 about the present critical state of m affairs between the United States and W Venezuela. From these documents B ' the following resume of the questions M pending is taken, Including in each fl case the legal grounds upon which m " Venezuela bases her action. Bermudez Asphalt Case M The most Important case, and the one most strongly sustained by the Department of State, is the suit of H the New York and Bermudez Asphalt Company. It has been maintained by H Venezuela that this company stlpu-H stlpu-H lated In Its contract that the disputes and controversies arising therefrom should be decided by the tribunals of Venezuela. Venezuela holds further that the company entered Into a con spiracy to overthrow the Government H of Venezuela. Thecourtsof Venezuela decided that the company's concession was forfeited because of its failure to comply with the terms of the contract and its complicity with the Matos 1 revolution. It appeared from evidence H . leard in a New York court that the Hj Asphalt Company had supplied funds H V to Gen. Manuel Antonio Matos to aid Hj l' , hlm Jt his endeavor to overthrow the i Castro Government. Hj ,n the case of Albert P. Jaurett, H who claims damages from Venezuela as an American citizen for forcible H expulsion from that country, Vene-H Vene-H uela maintains that he conspired against the Venezuelan Government, H and at In expelling hlin she was ful H )y wliuin her rights. H The claim of the Orinoco Steamship H Company was submitted to the Arbl- H tratlon Commission held at Caracas Hj 'nthe summer of 1003, and, on its H) main issues, was decided against the Hf company, although an award of Hi (28,224 out of a total claim of about $1,400,000 was made to tho claimant. Hi Tho Department of State demands Mr that this case bo reopened. Vene- B zuela Insists that by the terms of the K arbitration protocol the award must ' be held as Una!. The umpire making H. this award was C. A. II. Barge of M Holland, ex-governo: A Curacao. m The claim of the Orinoco Company B was likewise submitted to arbitration m, in 1003 and decided adversely to the company, Tho reopening of this case m Is not asked, but It alleged that , fresh wrongs have been Inflicted up- H on the company by Venezuela, and it 1111Li.i.;i.. i-'. -.,.i, mm,t , w, i,ut- v M, .tfr-r- is Insisted that the claim for damages on that account should be submitted to arbitration. But Venezuela Insists that these latter claims present the same question that was involved In the decision of the arbitration tribunal tribun-al of 1G03, to the effect that claims arising out of the contract of the company must be adjusted In the court of Venezuela, and that (hey are not a proper subject for reference to an arbitration tribunal. The Critchfleld Claim. . The last is that of the United States and Venezuela Company, commonly known as the Critchfleld case. This, too, is based upon a contract with the Government of Venezuela containing the stipulation that controversies arising from the contract be settled by the Venezuela courts. The company com-pany has not yet appealed to the courts. In replying to a note from the American Minister at Caracas regarding regard-ing re-arbitration of claims, the Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs Af-fairs called attention to the following statement contained in a note from Secretary Hay to tho Government of Salvador in reference (o a request from the latter that a caso already decided de-cided by arbitration be reopened: "A failure to comply with the reward re-ward would involve a grave discourtesy discourt-esy to the eminent arbitrators who sat in this Case and a serious Injury to the cause of arbitration.'1 Venezuela applied the above words of Secretary Huy to the reopening of the cases already decided by the Arbitration Commission of UK).'!. The arbitration tribunal passed upon up-on Ufty-tlve American claims against the Venezuelan Government for 'damages 'dam-ages aggregating over $10,000,000, of which $436,450,or less than 3 per cent.' the sum claimed, was awarded to the American claimants. Further argument that the contentions con-tentions of Venezuela are worthy at least of respectful hearing Is contained contain-ed in an article published recently In The North American Review, wherein where-in the writer practically accused the United States of repudiating International Inter-national arbitration by her attitude in thc'Venezuelan question. "By refusing to accept the award merely because the arbitrator's view of equity and justice Is different from that of the claimant," declares this writer, "or different from even those of tho Secretary of State, our Government Govern-ment takes a position unworthy of a greatnatlon. Ifanawardbemanlfestly In just, the evidence could be referred to Congress for Investigation, and necessary, neces-sary, money appropriated to satisfy the claimant. Surely such a course is far better than discrediting international inter-national arbitration, as has been done in the case now under consideration. consider-ation. And the same writer says In concluding con-cluding his article: Criticises Our Refusal to Accept Award "Unless fraud Is alleged, the United States should set the example of abiding abid-ing by the decision of International arbitration as at present constituted, no matter how crude the system, and find some other way of dealing with a clalmentwho is dissatisfied with an award than sending ultimatums to weaker nations. Otherwise the Impression Im-pression will soon prcvaij that International Inter-national arbitration Is Dual only when tho award Is satisfactory to the stronger nation." |