treaty provides: "All claims on the part of corporations, companies, or individuals, citizens of the United States, upon the government of Venezuela shall be submitted

to a new Commission," &c. Citizens when? In claims like this they must have been citizens at least when the claims arose. Such is the settled doctrine. The plaintiff state is not a claim agent. As observed elsewhere, the infliction of a wrong upon a state's own citizen is an injury to it, and in securing redress it acts in discharge of its own obligations and, in a sense, in its own interest. This is the key-subject of course to treaty terms-for the determination of such jurisdictional questions: Was the plaintiff state injured? It was not, where the person wronged was at the time a citizen of another state, although afterwards becoming its own citizen. The injury there was to the other state. Naturalization transfers allegiance, but not existing state obligations. Abbiatti could not impose upon the United States, by becoming its citizen, Italy's existing duty towards him. This is not a case of uncompleted wrong at the time of citizenship, or of one continuous in its nature.

The Commission has no jurisdiction of the claim for want of required citizenship, and it is therefore dismissed.

This claim is for $304.99, being for "a package of Venezuela currency for which the Republic of Venezuela is liable," to quote the words of the claimant. The petition does not state just how the indebtedness arose, or when; but it may

perhaps be inferred, from some language employed, that it is the currency of some bank which the government of Venezuela is under obligations, in the opinion of claimant, to redeem.

There is no averment that he is, or ever was, a citizen of the United States, aside from the transmitting letter of Mr. Stillwell, dated May 11, 1868, which states he is such citizen.

The claim is not supported by evidence, either as to merits or citizenship, and is therefore dismissed.

We learn from the letter of the commercial agent in charge of the Legation of the United States at Caracas, under date of August 1, 1868, that this claim is for $100,000, and, from the report to his government of the Venezuelan Commissioner, Oct. 3, 1868, that it was "for services of all 1 inds and of great importance rendered the Republic." This is all that appears on the subject from the papers transmitted us, and no evidence has been offered either as to the citizenship of the claimants-if indeed there are any, the claim transmitted being "the claim of the estate of James Barnes," without mentioning names-or as to merits. The claim is there

fore dismissed.

This claim was for $4,890 on account of money loaned, as would seem, by the claimant in New York, 1859, to General Paez. No one has appeared for it, and there is no evidence before us to sustain it. It is therefore disallowed.

This claim, originally for $2,252, seems to rest in imagination, so far as this Commission is concerned. It comes in an empty wrapper! There is no one to represent, nor a scrap of evidence pertaining to it. It is therefore disallowed.

Claim of

CHARLES H. LOEHR

V.

THE UNITED STATES OF VENEZUELA.

LITTLE, for the Commission:

No. 44.

The communication of the United States Minister at Caracas sent the old Commission May 8, 1868, states in substance that

One Dr. Hurtel, a citizen of the United States, temporarily residing and owning "certain property" at Palmarito, Venezuela (date not given), sold the property to one Kingan, who soon after, on sending an agent to that place, found the government of Venezuela had, before his purchase "or the arrival of his agent at Palmarito," appropriated the property to its own use; that K., in 1865, filed proofs with said government in the premises, and shortly afterwards sold and assigned his claim to the present claimant, whose demand upon Venezuela is set down at $9,020.57.

Supposing such to be the facts (and there is nothing offered in addition, the government of Venezuela disavowing any knowledge of the claim), there is no case here.

1. It is not claimed that the appropriation occurred under Hurtel's ownership. It may have been-probably wasunder Kingan's, for he made demand for indemnity. But he is not claimed to have been a citizen of the United States at the time, or ever; presumably he was not. His claim, therefore, not falling within the cognizance of the United States originally, cannot be brought so by assignment. Loehr took only the rights of Kingan. Supposing him (L.) to be a citizen of the United States (we take it he was the former consul), he as such was not injured, and has no standing under the treaty here. (See Case 34.)

2. The character or value of the property taken is not disclosed. It is not even charged that compensation has been denied. Presumptively the appropriation was in pursuance of law, and proper remuneration to the owner in due course, in the absence of a contrary showing, will be assumed. The claim is disallowed.

The claimants are the widow and daughter of Lorenzo Jove, deceased. They aver that, in 1865, the Venezuelan army injured the farm of the deceased, who died in 1866 near Puerto Cabello, Venezuela, and received from him supplies never paid for; and that, by reason of the premises, there is due them the sum of $43,139.25. They do not claim to be, or ever to have been, citizens of the United States, although they aver deceased to have been, but when is not stated.

There is no evidence to support the claim, nor on the question of citizenship. The claim is therefore dismissed.