View Document Frames
"The Chevalier de Argaiz to Mr. Forsyth, 5th November, 1839, and translation." U.S. Congress. House. Africans Taken in the Amistad. 26th Congress., 1st sess., 1840.H. Doc. 185.
The Chevalier de Agaiz to Mr. Forsyth.
NUEVA YORK, 5 de Noviembre de
1839.
El infrascrito, enviado extraordinario y ministro plenipotenciario de S. M. Catolica,
tiene la honra de acusar al Senor Secretario de Estado del Gobierno General de la
Union el recibo de su nota del 24 del proximo pasado Octubre; en la cual, sirviendose
contester a la de aquel de 22 del mismo, le manifiesta S. S. las razones que han
movido al Senor Presidente para ordenarle haga saber al infrascrito que la accion
del Gobierno, para obtener la libertad de los subditos Espanoles, Montes y Ruiz,
no puede ser concedida del modo que dicho ministro la pedia. Pero que como la prision
de estas personas se relaciona palpablemente con otra ocurrencia que ha sido sometida
a la consideracion del Presidente, en consecuencia de una correspondencia entre la
legacion de Espana y el Departamento de Estado, se habian dado instrucciones (de
las cual es S. S. le incluia copia) al attorney de los Estados Unidos en el
distrito de Nueva York, a fin de que, poniendose en comunicacion con aquellos Senores,
les ofreciese su consejo (y su ayuda, si necesario fuese) en cualquiera medida que
pareciese propio adopter para obtener su libertad, &a.
Aunque esta contestacion no satisfizo enteramente al deseo, que impedido por su deber,
y fundado en los tratados vigentes, manifesto el abajo firmado, en su escrito del
22 de Octubre, la recibio, sin embargo, con gusto y agradecimiento; con gusto, por
que vio en ella que el Senor Secretario de Estado no negaba las razones que aquel
tuvo la honra de exponer en aquel escrito; con agradecimiento, por ver que habian
sido acogidos con benevolencia los sentimientos que le habian excitado a pedir, con
urgencia, una pronta respuesta.
En vista de esto, el infrascrito se traslado inmediatamente a Nueva York, en donde
visito el 29 del ultimo al attorney de los Estados Unidos, con quien tuvo una larga
conferencia, de la que si bien salio prendado de la afabilidad y cortesia del Senor
Butler, no tuvo la dicha de quedar satisfecho en cuanto al asunto principal; pues
este oficial de justicia le manifesto no hallaba otro medio de obtener la libertad
de Ruiz (habiendola ya obtenido Montes) que esperar el fallo del tribunal o tribunales,
contra cuya jurisdiccion habia ya, precisamente, protestado el abajo firmado.
[16]
Cuando el Gobierno Espanol acaba en estos mismos dias de dar una prueba al de
la Union, de la rigidez con que observa sus tratados, y del respeto con que considera
la jurisdiccion de estos tribunales, remitiendo al Senor Presidente desde la Habana,
los autos originales seguidos contra Mr. Abraham Wendell, capitan del bergantine
Kremlin, por hacer maltratado a su primer piloto Mr. Guillermo Bell: cuando el infrascrito
estaba persuadido de que todo cuanto manifesto al Senor Secretario de Estado en las
dos conferencias, que precedieron a su nota del 22 de Octubre ultimo, y las indicaciones
hechas en esta, bastarian a su alta e ilustruda penetracion para convencerle del
derecho que asiste a su reclamacion; cuando esta persuasion no ha podido menos de
robustecerse, al ver que el Senor Secretario de Estado no ha tratado en su contestacion
de rebatirlas, y si solo de explicar el curso que siguen las cansas civiles antes
estos tribunales, para de ello sacar la consecuencia de que la accion del Gobierno
no se puede conceder del modo que el representante de S. M. C. la solicitaba; preciso
es reforza los argumentos a riesgo de ser molesto.
Conocido es de todo el mundo que un tribunal no puede, juzgar delitos, ni faltas
cometidas en otros paises u otras jurisdicciones; y bajo otras leyes, cuya aplicacion
no le esta encomendada: tambien lo es, que no pueden admitirse ante un tribunal demandas
de esclavos contra sus duenos o senores. Pero aun si todo esto no fuese bien notorio,
no se encuentra para el caso presente el articulo 7° del tratado de 1795? Que
dice este? Que en el caso que un ciudadano Americano contraiga deudas o cometa
ofensas en los dominios de M. C., o un Espanol en los Estados Unidos, se procedera
al arresto y demas del modo que esta establecido, &a. Lo cual, como dijo el ministro
de Espana en su anexo a la nota del 22, y lo prueba el hecho antes citado; relativo
al proceso de Mr. Wendell, prueba, que ninguna de las dos partes contratantes pudo,
ni quiso renunciar a su respective jurisdiccion. Y estando tan claramente probada
la incompetencia de los tribunales de los Estados Unidos en el caso actual, no existe
en esta Republica Federal un poder que asi lo declara e interpona su accion para
hacer cesar la irregularidad y la incompetencia? Imposible parece, pero desgraciadamente
asi sucede.
Por tanto el enviado extraordinario y ministro plenipotenciario de S. M. C. al ver
que su anterior protesta no ha obtenido el resultado que el se prometia, la renueva,
haciendo responsable a este Gobierno de las consequencias que este asunto tuviese;
y pregunta al Senor Secretario de Estado del Gobierno de la Union, si este se encuentra
con la autoridad y fuerza suficiente para llevar a debido cumplinmiento el tratado
de 1795. En el caso contrario, no puede existir tratado ninguno, que solo oblique
a la otra parte.
El infrascrito se lisongea con la esperanza de obtener una pronta contestacion, por
exigirlo asi la cuestion, y la libertad de un subdito Espanol, que padece una injusta
e ilegal prision; y al mismo tiempo renueva al Senor Secretario de Estado las seguridades
de su mas perfecta consideracion.
EL CABALLERO DE ARGAIZ.
Al Honorable Senor JOHN FORSYTH, &c.
[17]
_______
The Chevalier de Argaiz to Mr. Forsyth.
[TRANSLATION.]
NEW YORK, November 5, 1839.
The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Catholic
Majesty, has the honor of acknowledging the reception of the note from the Secretary
of State of the General Government of the Union, dated the 24th of October, in which
that gentleman, in reply to one of the 22d of the same month, shows the reasons which
induced the President to order information to be communicated to the undersigned
that the Government could not act as the undersigned had requested, for the purpose
of obtaining the liberty of the Spanish subjects Montes and Ruiz; but that, as the
imprisonment of those persons was evidently connected with another occurrence, which
had been submitted to the consideration of the President, in consequence of a correspondence
between the Spanish legation and the Department of State, instructions (of which
a copy was enclosed) had been given to the attorney of the United States for the
district of New York, to the effect that he should offer to those persons his advice
and assistance (if needed) with regard to the most proper means of obtaining their
liberty.
Although this answer did not entirely satisfy the desire expressed by the undersigned
in his note of October 22d, to which he was impelled by the sense of his duty and
by the terms of existing treaties, yet he received it with pleasure and with thanks:
with pleasure, because he saw that the Secretary of State did not refuse to admit
the reasons which the undersigned had the honor to state in that note: and with thanks,
because he saw that the sentiments which had urged him to request with warmth a prompt
reply, had been kindly interpreted. The undersigned, in consequence, went immediately
to New York, where he visited, on the 29th ultimo, the attorney of the United States,
with whom he had a long conversation, which left him delighted with the affability
and courtesy of Mr. Butler, although he did not have the happiness to remain satisfied
as to the principal matter, as that officer of justice declared that he could find
no other means of obtaining the liberty of Ruiz (Montes being already free) than
by waiting the determination of the court or courts, against the jurisdiction of
which the undersigned had already especially protested.
Considering that the Spanish Government has, just within these few days past, given
to that of the United States a proof of the strictness with which it observes treaties,
and of the respect which it bears to the jurisdiction of the courts of this country,
by sending from Havana the original documents of the prosecution against Mr. Abraham
Wendell, the captain of the brig Franklin, for maltreatment of his mate, William
Bell; that the undersigned is well persuaded that what he has said to the Secretary
of State, in the two conferences preceding his note of October 22d, and the indications
contained therein, would have been sufficient to convince one so enlightened and
discriminating of the justice of his claim; that this persuasion has gained strength,
from the circumstance that the Secretary of State has made no attempt in his answer
to oppose those arguments, but has confined himself to endeavoring to explain the
course of civil causes in the courts of this country, in order to show that the Government
of the United States could not interfere in the manner in which Her Catholic Majesty's
representative requested; it becomes necessary to advance further arguments, at the
risk of being importunate.
[18]
It is allowed by the whole world that a court cannot take cognizance of crimes
or delinquencies committed in other countries, or other jurisdictions, and
under other laws, the application of which is not intrusted to it; as, also, that
petitions or accusations of slaves against their masters cannot be admitted in a
court. If, however, all this were not well known and established, does not the seventh
article of the treaty of 1795 apply to this case? What says that article? It says
that, in case an American citizen should contract debts or commit offences
in the dominions of His Catholic Majesty, or a Spaniard in the United States, the
proceedings for his arrest and all others against him shall be conducted in the manner
already established, &c. &c. All of which, as the Spanish minister said in
his note of the 22d, and also the circumstances above mentioned relative to the prosecution
of Mr. Wendell, prove that neither of the two contracting parties could or wished
to renounce their respective jurisdiction. And as the incompetence of the courts
of the United States, with regard to this matter, is so clearly demonstrated, is
there no power in the Federal Government to declare it so, and to interpose its authority
to put down the irregularity of these proceedings, which the court is not competent
to perform? It seems impossible that there should be no such power; but, unfortunately,
there is none.
Her Catholic Majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, nevertheless,
seeing that his previous protest did not produce the result which he expected, renews
it now, declaring this Government responsible for the consequences which may grow
out of this affair; and he asks the Secretary of State whether or not he possesses
sufficient authority and force to carry into fulfilment the treaty of 1795? If he
has not, then there can be no treaty binding on the other party.
The undersigned flatters himself that he will obtain a speedy reply, as required
by the nature of the case and the rights of Spanish subject, who is suffering an
unjust and unlawful imprisonment; and he, at the same time, repeats to the Secretary
of State the assurances of his most high consideration.
THE CHEVALIER DE ARGAIZ.
To the Hon. JOHN FORSYTH,
Secretary of State.
