stefansson-wrangel-09-37-027

-26-

Statea had recognized the sovereignty of Venezuela over the
island (p.408); 6) Venezuela is not responsible,for the claim-
ants were trespassers.

The question was settled by a claims convention, ratified
February 26, 1861, 2 Mallory 1843. By this convention Venezuela
agreed to pay $130,000 as satisfaction of the claims of the
citizens of the United States whom it had ejected from Aves
Island, and "Article III: In consideration of the above agree-
ment and indemnification, the government of the United States,
and the individuals in whose behalf they have been made, agree
to desist from all further reclamation respecting the island of
Aves.”

What results can be deduced from this controversy? The
position of the United States at least seems consistent with
that which It assumed in the case of Navasa. But here again
it seems to have made a statement of its claim and stuck to it
regardless of opposition. The fact that the United States
carried Its point would not seem to Imply that its claim was
a valid one. In considering the case, the following points must
be considered: The claimants did not aver that they had dis-
covered the island; their agent "went to Aves Island to look
for guano, and found it.” In the course of the correspondence
the United States did not once make the assertion that it claimed
the island as a part of its territory: it merely purported to
be demanding damages for a wrongful eviction. The eviction could
only be wrongful if the island was not a part of the national