three million dollars. Prior to the election in August, 1908, a census of Cuba was taken and completed, under the direction of an official of the United States Census Bureau. This brief statement sufficiently shows the earnest purpose of the American occupation, for the United States has sought by all means in its power to enable Cuba to maintain that independence acquired for it by the United States. The desires of the American people for the success of the sister republic was admirably voiced by President Roosevelt in his telegram of January 29, 1909, to the president and congress of the republic of Cuba, announcing the termination of the American occupation: Upon the occasion of this final act, I desire to reiterate to you the sincere friendship and good wishes of the United States, and our most carnest hopes for the stability and success of your government. Our fondest hope is that you may enjoy the blessings of peace, justice, prosperity, and orderly liberty, and that the friendship which has existed between the republic of the United States and the republic of Cuba may continue for all time to come. THE FIRST DECISION OF THE CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE In its October (1908) issue the JOURNAL called attention to the formation of the Central American Court of Justice, explained its jurisdiction and procedure, and furnished a list of the judges of the court. In July, 1908, Honduras appeared before the court accusing Guatemala and Salvador of unneutral conduct in that the sister republics were taxed with fomenting revolution in Honduras. The pleadings in this remarkable case were set out in sufficient detail in the editorial comment to which reference is made.1 After considering the case during a period of several months and weighing the arguments addressed to it by the counsel of the parties litigant, the court delivered its judgment on December 19, 1908. The considerandos have not been received but will be printed together with the judgment in the section devoted to judicial decisions in a subsequent issue. A literal translation of the text of the judgment follows: In the city of Cartago, Costa Rica, at 12 at night of December 19, 1908. The deliberations of the court having been considered to have been concluded, so that it could proceed to render judgment on the suit begun by the government of the republic of Honduras against the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala, 1 Vol. 2, p. 835. on account of responsibility with which the former government charges the latter two in connection with the revolution which occurred in the former of said republics in July of this year, the honorable presiding magistrate proposed the following set of questions to be answered in rendering the judgment which was to decide the controversy: 1. Should we allow the exception of inadmissibility of the complaint, as interposed by the representative of the Guatemalan government on the alleged ground that said complaint was filed without exhausting the means of settlement between the respective chancelries? Negative: all five judges. 2. Should we allow the exception, interposed by the same party, alleging insufficiency of the petition to institute proceedings, owing to the circumstance that it was not accompanied by the appropriate evidence when the charge was first preferred? Negative: all five judges. 3. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of El Salvador has violated article 17 of the General Treaty of Peace and Amity concluded at Washington on December 20, 1907, by not arresting and trying the Honduran emigrants who were threatening the peace of their country? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra and Astua. Affirmative: Judges Ucles and Madriz. 4. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of El Salvador violated article 2 of the Additional Convention annexed to said Treaty, by protecting or encouraging the aforesaid insurrectionary movement? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua. Affirmative: Ucles. 5. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of El Salvador contributed toward the accomplishment of said political offense by a culpable lack of diligence? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra and Astua. Affirmative: Judges Ucles and Madriz. 6. Should, consequently, the action begun against the government of El Salvador be declared proper and the latter therefore sentenced to pay the damages asked? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra and Astua. Affirmative: Judges Ucles and Madriz. 7. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of Guatemala violated article 17 of the General Treaty of Peace and Amity concluded at Washington on December 20, 1907, by not arresting and trying the Honduran emigrants who were threatening the peace of their country? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua. Affirmative: Judge Ucles. 8. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of Guatemala violated article 2 of the Additional Agreement to said treaty by protecting or fomenting the said insurrectionary movement? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua. Affirmative: Judge Ucles. 9. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of Guatemala contributed toward the accomplishment of the said political offense by a culpable lack of diligence? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua. Affirmative: Judge Ucles. 10. Should, consequently, the action begun against the government of Guatemala be declared proper and the latter therefore sentenced to pay the damages asked? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua. Affirmative: Judge Ucles. 11. Should the losing party or parties be sentenced to pay the costs of trial? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua. Judge Ucles answered that the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala should be sentenced to pay the costs. From the foregoing vote, as stated, it results that judgment is pronounced rejecting the action brought against the high defendants, without sentencing them to payment of the costs. JOSE ASTUA AGUILAR SALV. GALLEGOS ANGEL M. BOCANEGRA ALBERTO UCLES It was not difficult to foresee that the court would take jurisdiction, even although the defendants maintained that diplomatic negotiations, a condition precedent, had not taken place, and it seemed probable that the court would find the allegations of Honduras unsupported by the evidence submitted. The decision marks a great progress toward the judicial settlement of international disputes and shows the complete analogy between public and private law. Whether the judgment of the court is favorably received by Central America or is subjected to criticism the fact remains that the court performed its delicate mission under trying circumstances and that its intervention in the dispute between Honduras on the one hand and Guatemala and Salvador on the other without a request from any of the litigants prevented the outbreak of war in Central America. The action of the court is thus a confirmation of the partisans of arbitration that an international tribunal can not only maintain peace, but in appropriate cases prevent war. THE VENEZUELAN SITUATION On June 13, 1908, Secretary Root informed the Venezuelan Government that by reason of the persistent refusal of the existing gov vernment of Venezuela to give redress for the governmental action which substantially destroyed or confiscated all American interests in Venezuela or to submit the claims of American citizens for such redress to arbitration the Government of the United States was forced to the conclusion" that the further presence in Caracas of diplomatic representatives of the United States subserves no useful purpose." Mr. Root therefore directed the American chargé d'affaires to place American interests in the hands of the representative of Brazil, which had already offered its services to the United States. The Venezuelan Government was informed of the decision of the United States, and diplomatic relations between the countries were thereupon severed. The claims of American citizens referred to by the secretary of state and the refusal of Venezuela to settle them by diplomatic negotiation or to submit them to arbitration, which led to the withdrawal of the American representative, are five in number, namely, (1) claim for the expulsion of A. F. Jaurett; (2) the refusal to arbitrate the claim of the Orinoco Corporation; (3) a refusal to reconsider and to submit to arbitration the claim of the Orinoco Steamship Company, passed upon adversely by the Mixed Commission under the protocol of February 17, 1903; (4) the persistent refusal of Venezuela to redress the wrongs of the New York and Bermudez Company, or to submit the question to impartial arbitration; and (5) finally the unwillingness of Venezuela to adjust the claim of the United States and Venezuela Co., familiarly known as the "Crichfield Claim," or to submit the controversy to arbitration.1 While it is impossible within the space of an editorial note to set forth these various claims in detail, it is essential to give a brief summary of each of the claims in order to understand the exact nature of the controversy between Venezuela and the United States. (1) The Jaurett Claim. A. F. Jaurett, an American citizen, was notified by the Venezuelan authorities on Saturday evening, November 12, 1904, after the closing hours of business to leave Venezuelan territory within twenty-four hours. A quotation from Mr. Root's despatch, dated February 28, 1907, to Minister Russell sufficiently states. the facts and discusses the attitude of the United States. The reason assigned by the authorities for the expulsion of Mr. Jaurett is that he was notoriously prejudicial to public order. On the following morning - that is to say, Sunday — the prefect of police waited upon Mr. Jaurett and formaliy 1 For full details of the claims and the diplomatic correspondence relating to them, see Senate Document No. 413, 60th Congress, first session. ordered him to withdraw from the territory of Venezuela in twenty-four hours. Although Mr. Jaurett attempted to obtain a modification of the order, so that he might be able to arrange his affairs and although the representative of the government of the United States accompanied and seconded him in this reasonable request, the Venezuelan government refused to grant such permission. Mr. Jauratt was therefore obliged to quit the country on Monday morning in pursuance of the order of the governing authorities of Venezuela, leaving behind him his property, and without being given the opportunity to arrange and set in order his business affairs. The government of the United States neither questions nor denies the existence of the sovereign right to expel an undesirable resident. It cannot be overlooked, however, that such a right is of a very high nature and that the justification must be great and convincing. Otherwise residence in a foreign country would be neither safe nor profitable, for expulsion might at any moment deprive a resident of the legitimate rewards of a lifetime. While, therefore, the existence of the right is not denied, its exercise must be limited. The act is sufficiently harsh in itself. The manner and method of expulsion should not be humiliating, for it is not the purpose to humiliate and inconvenience the resident expelled, but to save the state from dangers resulting from the residence of the undesirable alien. It will be observed that the United States did not question the right of Venezuela to expel an undesirable alien, but Mr. Root felt that an American citizen should not be sent out of a country without an opportunity being given him to meet the charges made against him, and to arrange his business affairs. The promulgation of the decree on Saturday, the intervention of Sunday, rendered it impossible for Mr. Jaurett to arrange his affairs. It should be stated furthermore that Mr. Jaurett was domiciled in Venezuela and that article 80, section 22 of the Constitution of Venezuela, by virtue of which the president is authorized to expel foreigners, does not apply to domiciled aliens. Mr. Jaurett's claim is justified, it would seem, not merely by the theory and practice of international law but by a decision of the Venezuelan Commission in 1903, in the case of Buffalo v. Venezuela.2 (2) The Orinoco Corporation Case. This is a case of the conflict of concessions of the same land, i. e., the Delta of the Orinoco, granted to two people at different times. It appears that one C. C. Fitzgerald was, in 1883-4, was given the concession by the sanction of the Venezuelan Congress. January 1, 1886, the general European minister of Venezuela made an agreement with an American named George Turnbull, whereby the latter was to secure the concession in case the Fitzgerald concession became void through failure of compliance with the 2 Ralston's "Venezuelan Arbitration," 1903, pp. 696-706. |