144 AVES ISLAND. 



Mr. Sanford to Mr. TJiomas. 



Derby, Connecticut, 



July 11, 1856. 



Sir: Your letter of the 8tli instant lias been received, and at same 

 time one from Mr. Marcy of the Tth instant, acknowledging the re- 

 ceipt of what he erroneously calls "an authenticated copy" of the 

 deposition of Mr. John McCahe. It is an original, not a copy, though 

 I inclosed a copy with it, leaving the certificate to he added to it. 

 Another manuscript original was first made and sworn to by Mr. 

 McCabe, but that sent, it will be seen upon an examination of the 

 notary's certificate at the conclusion of the printed one, was again 

 sworn to, and at another date, and again signed by the witness, and 

 is, therefore, equally an original with the first manuscript. I refer 

 to this to prevent mistake hereafter. 



You will find, upon an examination of my letter of the 8th instant, 

 that my inquiry there made was not respecting the transmission to 

 our minister at Caraccas of the deposition of Captain Wheeler of the 

 8th and 15th June, 1855, which, as I was apprized on the 24th of 

 March last, had been sent to Mr. Eames in December, 1855 ; but my 

 inquiry was whether the third and last full and detailed deposition of 

 Captain Wheeler, transmitted by me to the department on the 9th of 

 May, 1856, and that of Eichard Thornell, transmitted by me on the 

 10th of May, 1856, and the receipt of both which was acknowledged 

 by the department in its letters to me of the 16th of May, 1856, had 

 been sent to Mr. Eames. Both these depositions are in manuscript, 

 and are full, and are deemed important. If mislaid or lost, on advice 

 thereof I will supply the loss by new ones. Unauthenticated copies 

 are filed with the committees of both houses of Congress having charge 

 of Mr. Shelton's memorial there. 



As these depositions, and also Mr. McCabe's, are deemed of conse- 

 quence, I should, as the attorney of Mr, Shelton, and of Sampson & 

 Tappan, certainly prefer that the United States minister at Caraccas 

 should have copies of them sent to him at the earliest possible period. 

 Such great delay has already occurred in the procurement of any 

 satisfaction for this outrage, that the claimants almost despair of 

 getting anything. 



In the procurement of proofs in this case, I have been obliged to act 

 on my own judgment as to what might possibly be required. In an- 

 swer to my inquiry of the 8th of last March as to " what proof the 

 department would deem requisite and sufiicient," or rather, as to lohat 

 points the department desired testimony, I was, on the 24th of the 

 same month, told in reply that "it is not the province of the depart- 

 ment to designate the nature of the evidence by which the claimants 

 should substantiate their claims. It is to be presumed, of course, that 

 the same care will be taken to obtain the most positive proof of which 

 the case is susceptible, as though the claims were to be subjected to the 

 scrutiny of a court of justice." 



I presume from the remark in your letter of the 8th instant, "it is 

 deemed inexpedient to cumulate further testimony," &c., that the 



