The silence of contemporary documents respecting Vespucci's voyage carries the greater weight from the fact that there are special reasons for the existence of such documents, if the voyage had been actually made. In 1508 a suit was begun by Diego Colon against the Spanish crown for the government of certain territory claimed by virtue of the discovery of Paria by his father, the admiral. The suit continued to 1513, and every effort was made by the crown to prove a previous discovery of the coast in question; hundreds of witnesses were examined, and their testimony has been preserved and published in Navarrete's collection. In this suit Vespucci was not summoned as a witness, although much of the time in royal employ, having held the office of _piloto mayor_ from 1508 to his death in 1512. No claim was advanced for his discovery, although the voyage is stated to have been made under royal patronage, and by proving its authenticity the crown would have gained its object. Indeed, Vespucci's name is only mentioned once in all the testimony, and that as having accompanied Alonso de Ojeda in his voyage of 1499. That no one of the many witnesses examined knew of Vespucci's voyage in 1497, if it were a fact, is hardly possible. Not only were the witnesses silent on the Florentine's expedition, but many of them, including Ojeda, affirmed that Paria was first discovered by Columbus, and next afterward by Ojeda himself. Now as Vespucci accompanied Ojeda, the latter would surely have known of any previous discovery by Vespucci, and as Ojeda was not friendly to Columbus he certainly would have made the fact known. Moreover, the admiral's charts and sailing-directions were followed by Ojeda in his voyage, which would hardly have been done with a skilful pilot like Vespucci on board, and one who had visited the coast before. True, this last point would have little weight if the coast of Paria was not the region visited by Vespucci, while the other points would be little if at all affected by the theory that North America was the coast explored. No other Spanish voyage to the new region was neglected; indeed, to have so completely disregarded Vespucci's expedition, it must be supposed that the king not only knew exactly what region he explored, but had a positive conviction that said region was entirely distinct from Paria; and we have seen that no such definite opinion was held at the time, but on the contrary, special pains was taken to prove that the new regions were "all one coast." When it is considered that Vespucci's voyage, that is the voyage of Pinzon and Solis, was mentioned in the testimony, the failure to summon the piloto mayor appears all the more remarkable. What more efficient witness could have been brought forward? Thus the silence of the testimony in this suit on the question under discussion, must be deemed something more than mere negative proof, as it is termed by M. Varnhagen. This gentleman also notes that only one witness mentions that Vespucci accompanied Ojeda in 1499; but he does not note that the presence of Vespucci on Ojeda's ships was of no importance to either party in the suit, while a previous discovery by him was of the very greatest importance to the crown.