76 AVES ISLAND. 



satisfied that the Venezuelan government have no title whatever to the 

 said Island of Aves, although, as appears by the paper aforesaid, that 

 government had contracted, before dispossessing us, with some other 

 party, based upon an assumption of title to the island ; that the course 

 of its officers is in violation of the law of nations and an outrage on 

 the rights of American citizens, and of your, memorialists in particular ; 

 that we have thereby been subjected to great and ruinous losses in our 

 business; that the document aforesaid is dated as at the ''Aves de 

 Barlovento," which is the well known name, as laid down on the 

 charts, of an island, or part of a group of islands, more than two hun- 

 dred miles nearer to Venezuela than this island of Aves, which has 

 never been known by any other name ; that whether the conduct of 

 the agents and officers of Venezuela originated in misapprehension or 

 was an intended outrage upon our rights, we are equally entitled to 

 indemnity. 



Wherefore your memorialists pray that such course may be adopted 

 by our government that their wrongs may be redressed, and full 

 indemnity awarded them for their losses and injuries by them sustained 

 through the violent and unlawful acts of the said government of Ven- 

 ezuela. And, as in duty bound, will ever pray. 



LANG & DELANO, 

 By their attorneys, 



B. B. & H. F. FRENCH. 



June 30, 1855. 



The evidence on fiie in the Department of State in support of the 

 claim of Wheelwright & Cobb, for indemnity in the same matter, is 

 referred to, to substantiate the facts above stated. 



B. B. & H. F. FRENCH, 



Attoi^neys, 



Claim of Lang dt Delano vs. the Government of Venezuela. 



In the matter of the claim of Lang & Delano for indemnity for dam- 

 ages sustained at the Island of "Aves." 



It is said that the agents of the Americans, in the arrangement to 

 which they were parties, admitted the title of Venezuela to the island. 



To this we answer — 



1st. That the Venezuelan government had already taken armed 

 occupation and exclusive possession of the island, and so de facto set- 

 tled, at their peril, the present question of title. From this first decisive 

 and outrageous act, flow, as consequences, all the acts which follow. 

 There is nothing in the arrangement that in the least excuses the orig- 

 inal wrong of dispossession, or that can be construed into satisfaction or 

 amends, or into a waiver of claim to indemnity for it. 



2d. Had there been, upon the false assertion of title by Venezuela, 

 and express admission by the Americans of such title, it would be but 

 an admission under misapprehension of the fact, which could on no 



