Слике страница
PDF
ePub

THE TRIBUNAL, In view of the claim presented by the Spanish Government in favor of M. Antonio Rodriguez Sobrino and the papers in support thereof;

In view of the counter-case presented by the Portuguese Government on the subject of the said claim and the papers in support;

Whereas, with regard to the facts which have given rise to the difference submitted to the arbitration of the Tribunal:

The Spanish Government requests of the Tribunal, in favor of Antonio Rodriguez Sobrino, a Spanish citizen, the restitution of his joiner's tools, as well as articles of clothing and footwear which were located before October 5, 1910, at the home of his compatriots, the Spanish priests of Travessa das Mercês, No. 72, at Lisbon, where he was employed as a joiner; whereas, in default of this restitution, the claimant requests the value of his tools to the amount of 60 escudos, and for his clothes and footwear, the sum of 10 escudos; he finally claims the sum of 328 escudos 50 as compensation due for enforced cessation of work for one year, owing to the loss of his tools, the said indemnity calculated at the rate of escudos ( $ 90 per day, which this workman received for his work;

Whereas, the Portuguese Government makes the objection in the first place that the claimant does not furnish proof of his nationality;

Whereas, the Spanish Government has had knowledge of this exception through the counter-case of the Portuguese Government and has not drawn up any statement;

Whereas, the claimant, who alleges that he is a Spaniard, does not, in fact, furnish any proof of his nationality;

Whereas, the Tribunal is charged, by virtue of Article 1 of the compromis, to render judgment upon claims relative to the property of nationals of Spain, France and Great Britain, but whereas, the claimant does not prove, in the manner prescribed by the Spanish Civil Code and the Portuguese Civil Code, that he belongs to one of the aforementioned nationalities;

For these reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal declares the claim of the Spanish Government in favor of M. Antonio Rodriguez Sobrino to be inadmissible.

THE TRIBUNAL, In view of the claim presented by the Spanish Government in favor of Dona Magdalena Rodriguez y Laplana and the papers in support of this claim;

In view of the counter-case presented by the Portuguese Government on the subject of the said claim and the papers in support;

Whereas, with regard to the facts which have given rise to the difference submitted to the arbitration of the Tribunal:

The Spanish Government claims in favor of Dona Magdalena Rodriguez y Laplana, co-proprietor jointly with six Portuguese ladies, of a parcel of property situate at Lisbon, Rua Nova des Olivais, called Quinta de Candieiro, purchased by them at a price of 10,000,000 reis (10,000 escudos, or about frs. 50,000), according to an authentic document drawn up on October 21, 1899, and entered in Book No. 125 of the notary Carlo Augusto Scola at Lisbon, a parcel of property estimated in the memoir at a value of 15,000 escudos or about frs. 75,000;

Whereas, one of these co-proprietors died on March 1, 1909, after having appointed as heirs the six other co-proprietors in such a way that at the present time the six ladies, still living, are co-proprietors of the aforementioned parcel of land;

Whereas, the claimant alleges that she is a subject of His Majesty the King of Spain, and furnishes a certificate issued by the Consul-General of Spain in Portugal, in order to prove her nationality;

Whereas, the Portuguese Government denies that the claimant has established her nationality by the said certificate and claims that the Tribunal is not competent to render judgment in this case; whereas, the Portuguese Government, moreover, declares that since the claimant is a co-proprietor, she is not entitled alone to enter a claim for the complete or partial restitution of the said property; and, finally, whereas, the claimant is only a fictitious proprietor of onesixth of the property, the religious congregation Associaçao de Santissimo Caração de Jesu being actually and alone the proprietor of the property;

Whereas, according to Article 327 of the Spanish Civil Code “the minutes of the register of the civil state shall furnish the proof of the civil state, which shall not be replaced by any others unless it does not exist, or unless the books of registry have disappeared, or in case a dispute has been raised before the Tribunal”; whereas, the claimant has not furnished any other proof besides the aforementioned consular certificate, without alleging that she finds herself confronted by one of the exceptional cases of the aforementioned Article 327 of the Spanish Civil Code; whereas, her nationality has, therefore, not been established;

Whereas, the Spanish Government has had knowledge of the exception of incompetence maintained by the Portuguese Government and has not drawn up any statement;

Whereas, the claimant has not furnished the proof of Spanish nationality as it is prescribed by Articles 327 of the Spanish Civil Code and 2441 of the Portuguese Civil Code;

Whereas, the Tribunal is charged, by virtue of Article 1 of the compromis, to render judgment upon claims relative to the property of nationals of Spain, France and Great Britain, but whereas, the claimant does not prove, in the manner prescribed by the Spanish Civil Code and the Portuguese Civil Code, that she belongs to one of the aforementioned nationalities;

For these reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal declares the claim of the Spanish Government in favor of Dona Magdalena Rodriguez y Laplana to be inadmissible.

THE TRIBUNAL,

In view of the claim presented by the Spanish Government in favor of M. Robustiano Rodriguez y Sobrino and the papers in support of this claim;

In view of the counter-case presented by the Portuguese Government on the subject of the said claim and the papers in support;

Whereas, with regard to the facts which have given rise to the difference submitted to the arbitration of the Tribunal:

The Spanish Government requests the Tribunal, in favor of Robustiano Rodriguez y Sobrino, a Spanish citizen, to cause to be restored to him certain tools and other articles necessary to his profession as painter, which, before October 5, 1910, were located at the home of his compatriots, the Spanish priests of Travessa das Mercês, No. 72, at Lisbon, where he was employed; that in default of this restitution the value of the said objects be paid to him, that is 40 escudos; that, moreover, there be granted to him the sum of 292 escudos as compensation for enforced cessation of work for one year owing to the loss of his tools, the said indemnity calculated at the rate of 0.80 per day, which this workman received for his work, with interest at 5 per cent. upon the sums, computed from a period of three months after the rendering of the decision which is to be pronounced ;

Whereas, the Portuguese Government makes the objection in the first place that the claimant does not furnish proof of his nationality;

Whereas, the Spanish Government has had knowledge of this exception through the counter-case of the Portuguese Government and has not drawn up any statement;

Whereas, the claimant, who alleges that he is a Spaniard, does not, in fact, furnish any proof of his nationality;

Whereas, the Tribunal is charged, by virtue of Article 1 of the compromis, to render judgment upon claims relative to the property of nationals of Spain, France and Great Britain, but whereas, the claimant does not prove, in the manner prescribed by the Spanish Civil Code and the Portuguese Civil Code, that he belongs to one of the aforementioned nationalities;

For these reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal declares the claim of the Spanish Government in favor of M. Robustiano Rodriguez y Sobrino to be inadmissible.

THE TRIBUNAL, In view of the claim presented by the Spanish Government in favor of Fathers Leocadio Ruiz and Crescencio Marquez and the papers in support thereof:

In view of the counter-case presented by the Portuguese Government on the subject of the said claim and the papers in support:

Whereas, with regard to the facts which have given rise to the difference subrnitted to the arbitration of the Tribunal:

The claimants, alleging that they are Spaniards, chaplains of the Legation of Spain, occupied at the time of the revolution of October 3-5, 1910, the parcel of property at Travessa das Mercês, No. 72, and the adjoining church at Lisbon; whereas, their church and their house were invaded by the crowd and the revolutionary troops, who carried on a veritable pillage therein; whereas, after the revolution the Portuguese Government took possession of the house of the claimants and has not returned to them either their property or the value thereof; whereas, consequently, they claim the restitution of the said personal property or its value, the traveling expenses of the claimants and of two domestic servants attached to them at the time of their expulsion from Portugal, and 1,350 pesetas representing the cost of the repairs to be made in the church and in the house, which they occupied at the time of their expulsion from Portugal;

Whereas, the Portuguese Government makes the objection in the first place that the claimants, who allege that they are Spaniards, do not furnish proof of their nationality;

Whereas, the Spanish Government has had knowledge of this exception through the Portuguese counter-case and has not drawn up any statement;

Whereas, the claimants have not, in fact, furnished any proof of their nationality;

Whereas, the Tribunal is charged, by virtue of Article 1 of the compromis, to render judgment upon claims relative to the property of nationals of Spain, France and Great Britain, but whereas, the claimants do not prove, in the manner prescribed by the Spanish Civil Code and the Portuguese Civil Code, that they belong to one of the aforementioned nationalities;

For these reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal declares the claim of the Spanish Government in favor of Fathers Leocadio Ruiz and Crescencio Marquez to be inadmissible.

THE TRIBUNAL,

[ocr errors]

In view of the claim presented by the Spanish Government in favor of M. Luis Uzarraga and the papers in support thereof;

In view of the counter-case presented by the Portuguese Government, on the subject of the said claim and the papers in support;

Whereas, with regard to the facts which have given rise to the difference submitted to the arbitration of the Tribunal:

The Spanish Government requests of the Tribunal in favor of M. Luis Uzarraga, a Spanish citizen:

1. The restitution of certain personal property belonging to him, as well as to his wife, objects which he had deposited at the house of the Spanish priests residing at Travessa das Mercês, No. 72, at Lisbon, where he resided while he was waiting to find work in his profession as an electrician;

2. The allocation of a sum of 130 escudos as compensation for damages due to enforced cessation of work, as well as for the loss of his professional tools;

Whereas, the Portuguese Government makes the objection in the first place that the claimant does not furnish proof of his alleged Spanish nationality;

Whereas, the Spanish Government has had knowledge of this exception through the Portuguese counter-case and has not drawn up any statement;

Whereas, the claimant, who alleges that he is a Spaniard, does not, in fact, furnish any proof of his nationality;

Whereas, the Tribunal is charged, by virtue of Article 1 of the compromis, to render judgment upon the claims relative to the property of nationals of Spain, France and Great Britain, but whereas, the claimant does not prove, in the manner prescribed by the Spanish Civil Code, and the Portuguese Civil Code, that he belongs to one of the aforementioned nationalities;

For these reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal declares the claim of the Spanish Government in favor of M. Luis Uzarraga to be inadmissible.

BOOK REVIEWS 1

Collapse and Reconstruction, European Conditions and American Principles.

By Sir Thomas Barclay. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1919. pp. ix, 315.

This book is a study of present-day world politics, with special reference to the influences which have proceeded from the United States. The author is one of the most prominent in the little group of lawyers having offices in different countries, who are often spoken of as “international lawyers,” and his work is full of important suggestions.

He frankly takes the position that the principles laid down by President Wilson as peace preliminaries, having been accepted as such by all parties to the World War, must be taken as constituting for the time being, at least, the basis of reconstruction (p. vi).

Peace, after a fashion, has been achieved, but he says, its duration is dependent rather upon a simultaneous advance of the reasonableness of mankind than upon any artifices of statesmen and diplomatists. I say simultaneous, because just as the slowest ship makes the pace of a fleet, so the most backward nation in the community of nations makes the pace of civilization. But even assuming a relatively high degree of civilization in any one state, the majority may be easily swayed by circumstances, oratory, prejudice, their mental balance disturbed by over-education, the rectitude of their vision vitiated by tradition and the different influences which determine the character of groups of mankind, just as they do that of individuals (p. 2).

In America, he thinks, foreign policy is kept more in harmony with domestic policy, than in Europe. It is more consistently democratic. It keeps the government more closely in touch with the people. Its golden rule, as formulated by President Wilson in stating the reasons for the intervention in the World War by the United States, has been to secure “the reign of law based on the consent of the governed” (p. 18).

Why have not the successive world movements towards peace, with all their backing from America, achieved more? “The failure of the peace movements of a generation of civilized mankind, in fact, is due to concentration of effort on arbitration, and other methods of dealing with incidents of international trouble, and not with causes” (p. 12).

Sir Thomas formulates, himself, certain “generalizations or principles” as seeming to apply to present circumstances. Among them (p. 23), the following may be particularly mentioned :

1. The movable or changeable yields to the immutable; therefore, in a conflict between racial and geographical considerations, the latter necessarily prevail.

2. Natural boundaries are such as offer the minimum of obstacles to their preservation

i The JOURNAL assumes no responsibility for statements made or views expressed in signed book reviews.-ED.

122

« ПретходнаНастави »