AVES ISLAND. 77 



principle bind them. No party can take advantage of liis own wrong, 

 or claim a right because his own falsehood has been taken for truth. 



An admission, even of title, in another, if not induced by falsehood, 

 is not binding if made under misapprehension, except in some cases 

 where rights of innocent third parties intervene. 



3d. The agents of the American owners had no authority to bind 

 their principals in this matter, which could not be within the scope of 

 their authority. 



Had the Venezuelan officer claimed one of the American vessels as 

 belonging to his government, and procured, by or without force, an 

 admission from the captain or agent that such claim was just, no one 

 would pretend that the property of the owner could be thus transferred. 



4th. But the agents of the Americans were actually under duress, 

 and so, had they made agreements prejudicial to their interests, no one 

 could be bound by them. 



B. B. & H. F. FRENCH, 

 Attorneys for Lang & Delano. 



Washington, June 30, 1855. 



Mr. French to Mr. Marcy. 



Washington, December 17, 1855. 

 Sm : On the 30th of June last I had the honor to address you as the 

 attorney of Lang & Delano and Wheelwright & Cobb, of Boston, 

 relative to indemnity claimed by them from the Venezuelan govern- 

 ment for outrages committed by the agents of that government on 

 their property at the Aves Island, to which I received a reply, dated 

 July 2, 1855;, saying ''that the department" was then " engaged in 

 the consideration of that subject." 



Will you do me the favor to inform me how those cases now stand, 

 and very much oblige your obedient servant, 



B. B. FRENCH. 

 Hon. Wm. L. Marcy, 



Secretary of State. 



Mr. Marcy to Mr. French. 



Department of State, 

 Washington, December 20, 1855. 

 Sir: In' reply to your letter of the 17th instant, in relation to the 

 claim of Lang & Delano and Wheelwright & Cobb, against the Ven- 

 ezuelan government, I have to inform you that as the subject is still 

 under discussion between the two governments, no definite intelli- 

 gence can be imparted to the claimants at this stage of correspondence. 

 I may, however, prevent untoward anxiety on the part of the claim- 

 ants whom you represent, by stating that the contract which the 



