AVES ISLAND. 419 



dence ; that is, sucli a degree of proof as will leave no reasonable doubt 

 with, regard to truth. 



This evidence, thus qualified, is what the claimants have not pre- 

 sented, so as to destroy the value of the permit of December 13, and 

 consequently, even in the denied admission of Isla de Aves being 

 deemed derelict, there would be no ground left for the required liability 

 of Venezuela. 



The above statement of the justification of Venezuela would not be 

 complete did it not further evidence that Mr. Eames had erroneously 

 informed the cabinet of Washington that the cabinet of Caraccas had 

 willfully retarded the consideration of this affair, whereas, by the ofiicial 

 acts of both cabinets, quite the contrary is shown. 



In March, 1855, Mr. Eames received from Mr. Marcy the first official 

 note on the subject. In the same month, and in April following, he 

 procured two interviews with the Secretary of Foreign Relations for 

 the purpose of obtaining information. Afterwards he had occasion to 

 mention the intended claim on the Pickrell question, (September, 

 1855,) and on that of Holland, (March, 1856.) The last declarations 

 which the claimants tried, when they thought of annulling the permit 

 of 13th December, were rendered in April, 1856. This last incident 

 shoTfs that Mr. Eames could not have introduced the claim into the 

 cabinet of Caraccas before the 20th of December, 1856. 



If, as it has been pretended, the claim was presented in the conver- 

 sation of March, 1855, without any documentary evidence to sustain 

 it, it is now about three years since it was initiated ; but, even in such 

 an inadmissible case, the discussion could only have taken place on the 

 20th December, 1856, when Mr. Eames presented his written demand. 

 All the time, therefore, that the protected citizens required for obtain- 

 ing their proofs against the permit of the 15th December is attributed 

 to procrastination on the part of Venezuela. 



In one way or the other, the truth is, that the discussion did not 

 commence until the 20th December, 1856. The government of Vene- 

 zuela contested the claim, repudiating it in a note of the 27th February, 

 185*7. On the 31st March, Mr. Eames insisted in an extensive note, 

 accompanied with the evidence of the claimants; and, without allowing 

 time for the examination thereof, arrogated to himself the right of 

 terminating the discussion, scarcely yet opened between two equal 

 States that maintain and cultivate the most friendly relations with each 

 other. 



And what was his subsequent course of procedure? He still persists 

 in denying to Venezuela the necessary time to collect such evidence in 

 the case as was required to oppose that presented by Shelton and his 

 associates. He pays no attention to the official citation served on him 

 for the taking thereof, pretending, thereby, it may be presumed to put 

 out of question those facts of fraud and violence which, for the first 

 time, opposed the permit of December 13th ; and, finally, having 

 obtained permission from his government to return to his country, he 

 ostentatiously demanded his passports, leaving it to be inferred as the 

 result of the pending question, and as placing the relations of the two 

 countries in a state full of perils. 



