AYES ISLAND. 413 



lie to continue in the enjoyment of the benefit of Isla de Aves, because 

 of its being deemed the property of other American citizens ; and that 

 far from doing so, this very legation strongly interfered on the Pickrell 

 question, in order to retain the usufruct of the island for the Wallace 

 assignees. 



The government of Venezuela, relying upon these facts, holds that 

 her sovereignty over Isla de Aves has been recognized by the govern- 

 ment of the United States by acts of unequivocal significance, leaving 

 no room whatsoever for further protest. 



PROPOSITION SIXTH. 



Irresponsibility of Venezuela. — This is a conclusion which naturally 

 follows from the facts and reasonings already established. 



First. If Isla de Aves is the property of Venezuela, as has been 

 proved by strong titles and acts of the complaining government itself, 

 the American citizens, by invading it in 1854, committed an act of 

 filibusterism. 



The fact of their being even the first to discover guano thereon, did 

 not vest them with the right to make themselves masters of the acces- 

 sions, which nobody can deny, belongs to the owner of the territory. 



However, they acknowledge the fact of their having been found on 

 the island in December, with vessels ready to load guano, and of their 

 having, previous to the above date, already extracted therefrom a con- 

 siderable quantity of the article. So, then, Venezuela should have 

 regarded them as pirates taken by surprise, or in flagrante delicto. 



Their peaceful expulsion, far from making it an act of violence to 

 merit indemnification, is one of condescension and kindness which the 

 United States ought undoubtedly to acknowledge. 

 • Second. If Isla de Aves is not the property of Venezuela, it must 

 needs belong to Holland, who claims it. 



The acts exercised thereon by American citizens, do not for this 

 reason change their character. They are no less filibustering and 

 piratical, the islet belonging to Venezuela, than they would be were it 

 the property of Holland. As such, the Venezuelan navy had a right 

 to expel them from the territory of a friendly nation. 



On the supposition alluded to, the claimants have not the least right 

 to demand indemnification from Venezuela, just as Walker and_ his 

 followers could have no right to demand indemnification from Spain if 

 one of her admirals had assumed the position of Commodore Paulding 

 in the late events at Punta Arenas. 



On the supposition under consideration, Venezuela would have vio- 

 lated the territory of Holland, and this nation would have been the 

 one to resent the injury done ; but the pirates could not have acquired 

 the right to demand indemnification from Venezuela, for the same rea- 

 son that the United States will never award reparation to the invader 

 of Nicaragua, notwithstanding its being officially established that a 

 commander of the national navy violated a foreign territory in order 

 to succeed in the capturing of the filibusters. 



The present administration of the United States government, which 

 has assumed so strong a position on account of the Paulding-Walker 



