34 AVES ISLAND. 



and captured Ids lohole force, vessels and soldiers included, if we had' 

 resorted to arms and bloodshed. But we preferred relying upon the pro- 

 tection of our country. We submitted to Bias's commands because he 

 loas an officer of a sister American republic with tvhom oiir country was 

 at peace, and was acting by its authority with its public force. We 

 submit, sir, to you and the President that our forbearance was com- 

 mendable. The orders and conduct of Captain Dias were unnecessa- 

 rily harsh ; our tools and implements, materials and provisions were 

 seized in part by his soldiers, and our houses taken from our workmen. 

 The loss sustained thereby amounts to many thousand dollars. "We 

 were prevented from lading guano prepared to be put on board our 

 ships, and constrained by military force to abandon the isle with no- 

 cargoes for some vessels and with part cargoes for others. Our heavy 

 contracts for furnishing guano are by consequence unfulfilled, and 

 heavy damages incurred by us ; the wages of our numerous workmen, 

 who were rendered valueless to us by his illegal and unwarranted 

 interference, reach, in the aggregate, a large sum. Our whole outlay 

 for the business is a dead loss. We have had to pay for false freight 

 and demurrages and damages. And besides all this, the consequences 

 directly resulting to us from this outrage have been such as can readily 

 be anticipated by any commercial man They are embarrassments 

 and well nigh ruin, unless redress is promptly afforded us. V/e solicit 

 your consideration of all this, and trust it may induce to immediate, 

 action in our behalf." 



Not only was this overlooked by you, but it is also apparent that 

 you did not recollect that Messrs. Lang & Delano, in their letter to 

 you on the 15th January said, in reference to Dias and his soldiers,, 

 'Hoe coidd easily have kept possession by force had we seen fit so to do." 

 We cannot imagine that, if you had adverted to these two extracts, 

 you would have so misconceived the expression used by us in our 

 letter of the 14th ultimo, "constrained under the circumstances to 

 take," as to construe it to imply that Captain Gribbs was scared by 

 Dias into taking it, as your emplojanent of the common law term 

 "duress," without qualification, implies you supposed. We did not 

 mean to insinuate he took it under fright. We frankly say to you 

 that as to tliat paper, whether styled a "permit" or "license" or 

 "notice," or given any other name, and as to its being taken by 

 Gibbs, we shall not urge as a defense (whatever the consequence to 

 our claim, or whatever the effect upon our rights) anything inconsist- 

 ent with the declarations of ourselves and Messrs. Lang & Delano^ 

 just quoted, for they are the veritable truth. You inform us that the 

 department must be "satisfied this agreement luas made under duress." 

 Whether you refer to the "permit," "notice," or "license/' or 

 allude to the other alleged paper, is immaterial. We do not imagine 

 that your meaning was, that we must furnish proofs that our agent 

 was in a state of bodily fear, paralyzed in mind by apprehensions of 

 impending personal danger, terror stricken from threats and menaces,, 

 or hostile demonstrations or belligerent acts of Dias and his soldiers, 

 though some of the common law cases, as to contracts between indi- 

 viduals, advance doctrines that would require proof of a state of mind 

 akin to a condition of panic to constitute "duress" as necessary to 



