to be alien enemies. This raises a political rather than a judicial question. "Who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens and subjects of that government;" Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202; see also Foster v. Neilson, 2 Peters 253, 8 Curtis 108; Oetjan v. Central Leather Co., 246 U. S. 297; The Protector, 12 Wallace 700; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheaton 610; Williams v. The Suffolk Ins. Co., 13 Peters 415; Gelston v. Hoyt, 1 Johns Ch. 543. We have examined the documents, etc., called to our attention, to ascertain, inter alia, the action taken by our government and find it did in September, 1918, recognize the existence of such republic, and later sent a representative thereto. At the time of such recognition, however, the Republic had an army in the field but no territory and, so far as appears, the United States never recognized the territory here in question as that of the Czechoslovak Republic. The mere fact that such a republic was recognized proves nothing as to territory, especially as to that claimed to have been thereafter acquired. Furthermore, no treaty between any nations touching the territory here in question, made in time to affect this litigation, has been called to our attention. In the absence of any adequate political action recognizing a change of boundaries, we cannot assume the place in question ceased to be enemy territory until the war ended. An opposite conclusion is reached in two cases, cited by appellant, viz: Kolundjija, v. Hanna Ore Mining Co., (Minn.) 195 N. W. 163; Waldes et al. vs. Basch 179 N. Y. Sup. 173. The former, however, was by a divided court and in the latter such conclusion was not necessary to a decision of the case, for as some of the plaintiffs were alien enemies, being subjects of Germany, the suit failed without reference to the status of the other plaintiffs. Notwithstanding these authorities, for which we have great respect, there is, in our opinion, a distinction between the recognition of a revolutionary people and the territory which they may acquire.

In any event the claim filed by the Acting Royal Vice-Consul of Sweden, within the year, and later amended, tolled the statute. True, if the beneficiaries were then subjects of an alien enemy country their right to bring suit might have been successfully resisted (Siplyak v. Davis, Director Gen., supra, and authorities there cited; also 40 Cyc. 328), but no such objection was made, and it is too late to make it now as the war is ended: Hammersley v. Lambert, 2 Johns Ch. (N. Y.) 508; Taylor v. Albion Lumber Co., (Cal.), L. R. A. 1918 B. 185 and note, p. 193.

If claimants were then the subjects of a friendly nation, the claim filed by the Swedish Vice-Consul was still valid, for no one questioned his right to do so and it was ratified by the Consul of the Czechoslovak Republic on behalf of the Lyach children. The original petition was good in substance and the amendment thereto was properly allowed. "An amendment which merely expands or amplifies what was alleged in support of the cause of action asserted in the original complaint relates back to the commencement of the action and is not affected by the intervening lapse of time:" Seaboard Air Line v. Renn, 241 U. S. 290. A claim petition filed on behalf of the dependents of a deceased employe, although it fails to set out their names and ages, will toll the statute of limitations, if otherwise sufficient, as the omission may be cured by amendment. In Horm v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 274 Pa. 42, we held, inter alia, that: "It is not material in what form the claim appears, as long as it presents a demand or claim for an injury that, on the facts as stated, appears to be compensable."

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Workmen's Compensation Board

ACTION BY BOARD

Appeals Affirmed: Kotarski v. Wishieski, C. A. 1,082,524; Gray v. Howden, C. P. 16,652, with modifications; Barrett v. State Fund, C. P. 1772; Grubb v. Reign, C. P. 17,145; Cominsky v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., C. P. 16,354; Matej. v. Carnegie Steel Co., C. P. 6,199; Neplatone v. P. R. R., C. P. 16,995; Edwards v. Neighborhood Centre, C. P. 16,771, with modifications; Gorman v. American Metal Co., C. A. 1,284,643; McDermitt v. Aliquippa & Southern Rwy. Co., C. P. 16,478; Rainey v. Williams, C. P. 16,959; Cunningham v. Pfund & Son, C. P. 17,848; Vietez v. Phila. Ceiling & Stevedoring Co., C. A. 1,356,171; Mincan v. Avella Coal Co., C. A. 1,188,175; Carl v. Colonial Colliery Co., C. A. 1,314,471; Hicklin v. Shenk Co., C. A. 470,355; Lavely v. Bethlehem Steel Co., C. P. 17,518.

Appeals Reversed: Meyers v. Penna. Coal Co., C. A. 847,712. Appeals: Permission granted to take-Bender v. Meadville Machinery Co., C. P. 16,914.

Hearings de Novo: Awards made-Pogorzelski v. Pancoast Coal Co., C. P. 14, 975; Hurchik v. Bethlehem Steel Co., C. P. 17,104; Lawlor v. Donald McNeil Co., C. P. 15,004.

Hearings de Novo Granted: Longo v. Meadville Machinery Co., C. P. 16,679.

Rehearings Ordered: Fox v. Delond & Fox, C. P. 11,705; Quinet v. Penna. Coal & Coke Corp. C. A., 1,015,845.

Highway Department

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY WRIGHT ON EXPENSES AND PLANS

The Pennsylvania Department of Highways will have the largest construction and maintenance program of any State in the country in 1924.

The cost of the department omitting the Automobile Division for five years follows:

"I omit the Automobile Division, "' continued Mr. Wright, "because that is entirely separate from the organization which supervises road construction, road maintenance and replacements. The business of that division has grown by leaps and bounds."

Mr. Wright gave the following figures which he said would show not only the development of the Automobile Division, but of the increase in automobile ownership in Pennsylvania:

"During 1924," Mr. Wright said, "the Highway Department hopes to build 900 miles of durable thoroughfare. Its maintenance program is greater than ever before. Roads are to be widened, grades reduced, much new guard rail placed. A more extensive oiling program is contemplated, and more attention is to be paid the earth roads remaining on the State Highway System. In every line of endeavor it is our idea to surpass the efforts of previous years. That we have set ourselves no easy task is evidenced by figures showing construction and maintenance mileage for the last few years."

Referring to the number of employes in the Automobile Division, Mr. Wright said nearly a hundred comprise the members of the Motor Patrol. During the months of January and February, 1924, the division had a total of 1200 employes. Four hundred were hourly workers who will be removed from the payroll within a few weeks. Over a hundred persons employed on a salary basis will be dropped when the rush for drivers' licenses ends.

"We are preparing for a busy year," concluded Mr. Wright, "Before April 1st we hope to have contracted for not less than 400 miles of new road, and we will continue to award contracts for a couple of months thereafter. Pennsylvania is well on its way out of the mud."