stefansson-wrangel-09-37-022

-21-

To this letter Mr. Appleton, Assistant Secretary cf State,
replied: "I am directed to inform you that a citizen of the
United States having exhibited to this Department proofs which
were deemed sufficient that that island was derelict and aband-
oned, ....and having applied for the protection of this government
in removing the guano therefrom.... that application has been
granted. You will notice, however, that the act does not make
it obligatory on the government to retain permanent possession
of the island.” -- See S. Ex. Doc. 37, 36th Congress, first
session.

It is difficult to see how the position of the United States
in this controversy can be justified on any claim of discovery
and occupation. Duncan, and the Secretary of State with him,
merely states that he discovered guano on the island. Further,
it is extremely unlikely that an island situated where Navasa
is should have excaped discovery until 1857. So, if there was
no discovery of the island, a claim based on occupation must fall
down, unless it can be conclusively proved that the island was
not an appendage of some state. This might be so in one of two
possible ways: either, though discovered, the island had never
been acquired by any state, or, if it had been acquired as a
part of the territories of some state, it had been abandoned by
that state. If the island had never been acquired by any state,
it would seem that the case is clear; for then an occupation by
the United States would not conflict with previously acquired
rights of any other country. But, if the island had once formed