418 AVES ISLAND. 



always concliisivej since, by their own allegations, no legislation could 

 invalidate it. 



Yet Venezuela and the United States, equally independent, equally 

 sovereign, do not recognize any superior judge impartially to weigh 

 the proofs adduced. It belongs, therefore, to their respective govern- 

 ments to fulfill that delicate function, guided only by principles of 

 justice. 



The government of Venezuela, with a perfect knowledge of the case, 

 has advanced its views on the question ; they are very evident ; they 

 have herein been set forth, and clear it is that it could not be possible 

 to enunciate them with stronger foundation. 



The government of the United States must now, in its turn, express 

 its opinion. Presided over as it is by a theoretically and practically 

 just administration, Venezuela has a right to expect from it a disregard 

 for the alleged exception of fraud and violence, not only in considera- 

 tion of the reasons already given, but also because in the obtaining of 

 the testimony presented by the claimants, there have been omitted alh 

 the tutelar formalities to insure credibility of the witnesses, as those 

 connected with the case have never been brought to trial by judicial 

 proceedings, nor have in their favor the guarantee of public exami- 

 nation. 



All these guarantees were obtained by the evidence which the goA'- 

 ernment of the United States presented to Great Britain in the recent 

 question about recruiting ; and yet when Lord Clarendon, in the name 

 of his government, disregarded it on the ground of not being satisfac- 

 tory, tlie Secretary of State, Mr. Marcy, did not arrogate to himself 

 the right to judge alone, and on his own authority, of the value of the 

 testimony presented, notwithstanding its having been obtained in a 

 public formal trial, and corroborated with very important documents ; 

 but thought himself in duty bound to declare, in his note of 13th of 

 October, 1855, to the American plenipotentiary in London, that: 



"Should her Britannic Majesty's government see fit to disclose any 

 specific objection to the mode by which the evidence has been obtained, 

 or attempt in any other way to impeach it, this government will then 

 feel called on to vindicate its course, and show its ability to sustain its 

 charges by evidence to which no just exception can be taken." 



How could, then, the government of Venezuela expect, in the con- 

 troverted case, that the United States^ disregarding such sacred forms, 

 should deliberately sustain extra-judicial declarations of interested 

 witnesses, too suspicious to the efl^ect of exacting undue indemnification 

 from a whole nation? Such a proceeding would present a repugnant 

 contrast with that required by the ordinary course of the Union and 

 of all other civilized nations, to condemn a single individual in a trial 

 involving comparatively insignificant pecuniary interests. 



In an international question, therefore, in which much more tran- 

 scendental interests are concerned, the government of the United States 

 will require for, the purpose of its conviction, what it is known is 

 required in weighing the proofs of contradictory testimony ; not only 

 the preponderance of proofs, so that the one against the defendant will 

 palpably exceed the one in his favor, but the full and satisfactory evi- 



