AVES ISLAND. 407 



of Isla de Aves, than to the assertion of two sovereign nations, who, 

 although differing about the property, both agree upon the suhstantial 

 point that Isla de Aves has never been derelict. 



PROPOSITION FOUP.TH. 



Isla de Aves de7^eUcf, Venezuela the first occupant.— In order to carry 

 the gracious concessions to their ultimate expression, let it be supposed 

 that Isla de Aves were absolutely abandoned — in a condition to receive 

 primary occupation. 



Even on this false supposition, the citizens of the United States who 

 made their way into Isla de Aves in 1854 could not be deemed the 

 proprietors of said island. 



The United States legation has in no manner whatever demanded 

 the island for the nation. She has never maintained that it is their 

 property — the reason why she has not insisted upon its evacuation 

 and delivery. She solely and exclusively demands pecuniary indem- 

 nification. What title does she invoke? Merely previous occupation 

 by American citizens. 



Well^ then, on the supposition assumed, it is undeniable that the 

 occupation by Venezuela should prevail against that of the American 

 citizens, and should also produce the legal effects of which the occu- 

 pation by private individuals is not susceptible, looked upon by inter- 

 national law as rash and preposterous the moment one man presumes 

 alone to arrogate to himself an exclusive right over some territory, in 

 order to constitute himself into a monarch without subjects. 



The parties claiming have given proofs that they are conscious of 

 the injury done to their pretensions by that well-received doctrine 

 when they endeavor to demonstrate the contrary in their ''Memo- 

 randa of the case for the State Department," laying down principles 

 at variance with the rights acquired by nations, and forcing the inter- 

 pretation of those already recognized in their enlightened practice ; 

 but in the midst of the false doctrine diffused in their document there 

 always shines through the true one, as, for instance, in the following 

 passage : 



"Discovery by private citizens vests rights in the United States. It 

 is entirely immaterial whether such discoverer is a private citizen or 

 subject or a commissioned officer of a State. The same rights in either 

 case vest in the State to v/hich he belongs. (Vattel only refers to dis- 

 coverers furnished with a commission from their sovereign, and this 

 was the British argument in the Oregon case.") 



But the most convincing proof that the claimants did not trust to 

 the force of their demonstrations is furnished by the bill {ad hoc) 

 which they submitted to the consideration of Congress with the object 

 of declaring the rights "of American citizens who may discover and 

 occupy derelict guano islands/' &c. 



The following are presented as foundations : 



"Whereas the rights of the first discoverer of any island, key, or 

 rock not appertaining to any State by contiguity, unless followed and 

 perfected by continued possession and actual occupation thereof, be- 

 comes extinguished, and therefrom, or upon the abandonment of such 



