AVES ISLAND. 321 



to Aves Island. If the execution of his duties have resulted in unjus- 

 tifiable damages to any one, let them be asserted ; but beyond this, let 

 no one claim liberty. 



On the other hand, it can be no cause for astonishment that the Amer- 

 icans should be asked for proofs of the lawfulness of their conduct. 

 , They are the plaintiffs ; they accuse Venezuela of having disturbed 

 their enjoyment of a right ; they say that they were unlawfully ex- 

 pelled ; they look for a reparation for their pretended grievances ; they 

 maintain that Aves Island belonged to no one ; they allege that things 

 derelict belong to the first occupant ; they assert that the island was 

 never claimed by any power ; they affirm that it had never been 

 reduced into the possession, nor submitted to the jurisdiction, of any 

 one. They speak, besides, of the large outlays which they made, and 

 of the great losses incurred : of the consequences, immediate and 

 remote, of their ejectment ; and, in virtue of all these, they claim, 

 from the republic, an indemnification not yet definitely set forth. Is 

 it too much, therefore, to ask them to make good all they advance ? 

 We confess ignorance of any principle of law which puts upon the de- 

 fendant the burden of proof. On this head, see what Merlin says 

 of the word •' proof: " 



" In this matter, jurisprudence admits three great principles. The 

 first is, that he who lays down a fact is held to the proof, because facts 

 are not to be presumed, and consequently the denial of the adverse 

 party is sufficient in itself to warrant the idea of their non-existence ; 

 whence it follows that the denial requires no proof. The second is, 

 that the plaintiff must prove the fact on which he grounds his com- 

 plaint, and that, in like manner, the defendant is held to prove the 

 fact on which he rests his defense. The third principle is, that he who 

 lawfully possesses a thing is not bound to prove that it belongs to him, 

 but that he who disputes the right to the property is held to make 

 proof of the fact, or of the titles on which he grounds his claim," 



By all three of these principles, the claimants are compelled to meet 

 the obligation incumbent upon them, and, in consonance with uni- 

 versal jurisprudence, to prove the facts which they advance, to prove 

 the facts on which they rest their demand, to prove the facts on which 

 they stand to contest Venezuela's right to the proprietorship, or to the 

 usufruct of the island. 



Mr. Eames appears to think that Venezuela cannot allege the agree- 

 ment or document signed by Lang and Gribbs '' because its enlightened 

 government will assuredly never recognize that, acting through the 

 agency of high functionaries, the commanders of its public forces, it 

 entered into agreements with usurpers and with violators of law, en- 

 gaged in depredations upon the property of Venezuela, and caught 

 flagrante delicto, in the violation of its law and its territorial sover- 

 eignty. "_ 



On this point Mr. Eames mistakes. The convention, or "agree- 

 ment," since Mr. Eames has chosen to give it that name in his note of 

 the 20th of December, is an act which cannot be imputed to the gov- 

 ernment, because Colonel Dias's commission had a special character, 

 and his orders prevented him from granting such a permit. Thus he 

 Ex. Doc. 10 21 



