stefansson-wrangel-09-37-028

-27-

territory of Venezuela. The United States gave as its only
reasons for maintaining that the island was not a part of such
territory that the island was too far from Venezuela - 600 miles -;
that the island was abandoned; and that Venezuela had not suc-
ceeded to Spain.

Venezuela’s claims, on the other hand, are based on dis-
covery, and on succession to the discoverer, Spain. It is in
all probability true that the island was discovered by Spain;
but did that give a complete and indefeasible right to it? Its
nature was such that it had probably never been landed on or
occupied, for it was a small rocky island, only about a mile in
circumference, several hundred miles from the mainland, and a
considerable distance from surrounding larger islands. Did Ven-
ezuela succeed to the right of Spain? If she did, did she
abandon the island? Is the presence of the Venezuelan of-
ficer to be regarded as evidence that the island was not aban-
doned, or simply that his country thought it might prove val-
uable? It would seem that there is some strength in Venezuela’s
claim that she first occupied the island, because her soldiers
were the agents of her government, whereas the Americans were
but private citizens. But might not this claim be vitiated
if it could be proved that the Venezuelan soldiers were sent to
the island, not to protect an established interest of Venezuela,
but to eject others from territory possibly valuable, until
then res nulllus? It is suggested that not one of these questions
can be answered by the agreement which was finally reached, and