View Document Frames
"Chevalier de Argaiz to Mr. Forsyth, 26th November,
1839, and translation." U.S. Congress. House. Africans Taken in the Amistad.
26th Congress., 1st sess., 1840.H. Doc. 185.
The Chevalier de Argaiz to Mr. Forsyth.
WASHINGTON, 26 de Noviembre de 1839.
La nueva dilacion que el tribunal de Connecticut acaba de acordar senalando el dia
7 de Enero del ano proximo venidero para la vista del asunto de la goleta Amistad,
pone al abajo firmado, enviado extraordinario y ministro plenipotenciario de S. M.
C., en la precision de recordar al Senior Secretario de Estado del Gobierno General
de la Union sus anteriores reclamaciones.
La primera que hizo su antecesor, en 6 de Setiembre proximo pasado, solo ha merecido
en contestacion se acusase su recibo con fecha del 16 de mismo. En las contestaciones
que S. S., se ha servido dar a las del abajo firmado sus fechas 22 de Octubre y 5
de Noviembre ultimos, S. S. no ha tenido a bien rebatir los argumentos en que el
las apoyaba.
Los que ahora se propone presenter no seran menos poderosos, y espera sean tales
que S. S. no pueda negar la justicia de ellos.
El abajo firmado tiene la honra de preguntar, en que ley, acta, o estatuto, funda
el tribunal su competencia para entender en este asunto ?
La contestacion no puede ser dudosa: en ninguna ley, ni acta, ni estatuto. Por que
si alguna existiese, esta, o debio ser, anterior o posterior al tratado de 1795;
si era anterior, es claro que quedo anulada, por que un tratado es ley de las superiores
del estado, o el tratado ni hubiera podido firmarse, ni ratificarse, ni sancionarse
por los cuerpos legislativos. Si posterior al tratado, los cuerpos legislativos,
al redactarla, discutirla, y votarla, hubieran tenido presente que se oponia a un
tratado vigente que era ya ley de la Union. Luego es decir que en el actual estado
de la legislacion, este asunto ni puede ni debe decidirse por el derecho comun, sino
por el internacional.
Fundado, sin duda, en este convencimiento, el antecesor al que suscribe reclamo,
en 6 de Setiembre ultimo, la restitucion de la goleta, con todo su cargamento; y
si el Gobierno General de la Union hubiese resuelto este negocio gubernativamente,
poco hubieran tardado los proprietarios de ella en hacer uso del derecho que les
concede aquel tratado; del que resulta debio devolverseles el buque y sus mercancias
de cualquiera naturaleza que fuesen; por que, como dice el articulo 8°,
se hen visto obligados, por escaper de enemigos, (que los tenian a bordo del mismo
buque,) y era entonces necesidad urgente a buscar refugio y abrigo en las
costas de estos Estados, en donde debieron, segun los estipulados en el mismo articulo
"ser recibidos y tratados con humanidad,y gozar de todo favor, proteccion,
y socorro," en donde no se les debio detener, ni impedir de modo alguno
el salir de dichos puertos o radas, antes bien debieron poder retirarse, como y cuando
les pareciere, sin ningun obstaculo ni impedimento.
Mas habiendo sucedido muy diferentemente ha resultado: 1°. Que el tratado de
1795 no ha recibido su egecucion, como la legacion de S. M. C. lo ha solicitado,
resultando de aqui que la vindicta publica no se halla aun satisfecha; por que es
preciso no olvidar que la legacion de Espana no pide la extradicion de esclavos,
sino la de asesinos. 2°. Que se hen inogado grandes perjuicios a los proprietarios,
no siendo el menor la prision que esta padeciendo Don Jose Ruiz, a pesar de las reclamaciones
hechas sobre este punto, las que, sino han sido enteramente desoidas, no han tenido
a lo menos el favorable resultado que debia esperarse, resultando de ello que la
dignidad de la nacion Espanola se encuentra ofendida; y sobre cuyos perjuicios, el
infrascrito se reserva usar de su derecho en ocasion oportuna; aunque jamas las indemnizaciones
pueden debidamente recompensar los males fisicos y morales que en el hombre honrado
producer las persecuciones y los bejamenes ocasionados por el fanatismo.
[20]
Resulta pues de todo esto que un tribunal de uno de los de esta federacion se
ha amparado de un asunto que no le compete; que no puede existir ley ninguna anterior
ni posterior al tratado en la que pueda fundar una sentencia legal; que este tribunal,
con las repetidas dilaciones que decreta, contribuye a dilatar la satisfaccion que
la vindicta publica reclama; que, por consiguiente, solo puede resolverse por el
derecho internacional, y por tanto gubernativamente; que para resolverlo asi existe
un tratado cuya aplicacion ha reclamado la Espana; que de haberse retardado esta
resolucion, han resultado perjuicios que exigen indemnizaciones, y cuyo derecho se
reserve el infrascrito para ocasion oportuna.
El infrascrito puede sin indiscrecion asegurar que esta misma es la opinion del gabinete,
quien poseyendo ya los datos necesarios y aun indispensables, puede en el dia obrar
gubernativamente en este asunto, apoyandose en el estado actual de la legislacion,
y sin aguardar la decision de ningun tribunal.
No hacerlo asi podria dar lugar a explicaciones muy complicadas sobre la reciprocidad
en la egecucion y cumplimiento de los tratados.
El infrascrito se lisongea con la esperanza de que S. E. el Senor Presidente tomara
en su alta consideracion esta comunicacion, a la que espera una pronta respuesta,
con el nuevo testimonio de la escrupulosidad y respeto con que esta nacion sabe cumplir
los tratados que la unen con las demas naciones.
Si, contra esta esperanza, la decision no fuese cual el infrascrito la reclama, no
puede este menos de hacer responsable al Gobierno General de la Union de toda y cualquiera
consecuencia que la dilacion pueda producir.
El infrascrito tiene la honra de renovar al Senor Forsyth, Secretario de Estado del
Gobierno General de La Union, los sentimientos de su mas perfecta consideracion.
EL CABALLERO DE ARGAIZ.
Al Hon. Senor JUAN FORSYTH,
Secretario de Estado de los Estados Unidos.
_______
The Chevalier de Argaiz to Mr. Forsyth.
[TRANSLATION.]
WASHINGTON, November 26, 1839.
The new delay which the court in Connecticut has just granted, fixing the 7th
of January next for the trial of the case of the schooner Amistad, places the undersigned
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Catholic Majesty under the
necessity of repeating to the Secretary of State of the General Government of the
United States his former complaints.
[21]
To the first complaint, made by his predecessor, on the 6th of September last,
nothing more than an acknowledgment of its receipt was thought necessary, which was
made on the 16th of the same month. In the answers which the Secretary was pleased
to give to the notes of the undersigned, of the 22d of October and the 5th of November
last, that gentleman did not think proper to combat the arguments advanced. Those
which the undersigned now proposes to present will be no less powerful, and he hopes
will be such that the Secretary will not be able to deny their justice.
The undersigned has the honor to ask in what law, act, or statute, does the said
court base its right to take cognizance of the present case?
There can be no doubt as to the reply: On no law, act, or statute. For, if any such
existed, it is, or should be, anterior or posterior to the treaty of 1795. If anterior,
it clearly became annulled, because a treaty is one of the superior laws of the State,
or the treaty should never have been signed, or ratified, or sanctioned by the legislative
bodies. If posterior to the treaty, the legislative bodies, in drawing it up, discussing
it, and voting on it, must have seen that it was at variance with a subsisting treaty,
which was already a law of the Union. All which serves to show that, in the existing
state of the laws, this affair cannot and should not be decided by the common law,
but by the international law.
The predecessor of the undersigned, resting no doubt upon this conviction, demanded
on the 6th of September last, the restitution of the schooner, with all her cargo;
and, if the General Government of the Union had decided this matter of itself, (gubernativamente,)
the owners would have soon availed themselves of the right allowed them by the treaty,
according to which the vessel and her goods, of whatever nature they may be,
should be restored; for they had been, as the 8th article says, forced in order to
escape from enemies, (who kept them prisoners on board of the vessel herself,) and
there was, therefore, an urgent necessity to seek refuge and shelter on the coasts
of the United States, where they should have been, agreeably to the stipulations
of the same article, " received and treated with all humanity, and enjoy all
favor, protection, and help;" and where they were in no ways to be hindered
from returning out of the said ports or roads, but to be allowed to remove and depart
when and whither they pleased, without any let or hindrance.
Very different, however, have been the results; for, in the first place, the treaty
of 1795 has not been executed, as the legation of Her Catholic Majesty has solicited;
and the public vengeance has not been satisfied, for be it recollected that the legation
of Spain does not demand the delivery of slaves, but of assassins. Secondly, great
injury has been done to the owners; not the least being the imprisonment which Don
Jose Ruiz is now undergoing, notwithstanding the complaints made on that subject,
which, if not entirely disregarded, have at least not produced the favorable results
which might have been expected; and the dignity of the Spanish nation has thus been
offended. With respect to which injuries, the undersigned will, on a proper occasion,
use his right; although no indemnifications can fully recompense for the evils, physical
and moral, which the persecutions and vexations occasioned by fanaticism may cause
to an honorable man.
[22]
Thus it appears that a court of one of the States of the confederacy has assumed
the direction of an affair over which it has no jurisdiction; that there can be no
law, either anterior or posterior to the treaty, upon which a legal sentence can
be based; that this court, by the repeated delays which it orders, contributes to
delay the satisfaction demanded by public justice; and that, in consequence, the
affair should only be determined by reference to international right, and, therefore,
by the exercise of the power of the Government, (gubernativamente ;) that,
for its determination, the treaty exists to which Spain appeals; that, from the delay
on this determination, have proceeded injuries requiring indemnification, to demand
which the undersigned reserves the exercise of his right for a future occasion. The
undersigned may, without indiscretion, declare that this must be the opinion of the
cabinet, which, possessing already the necessary and even indispensable powers, may
immediately act (gubernativamente) in this matter, in virtue of the actual
state of the law, and without awaiting the decision of any court. Not to do so, may
give rise to very complicated explanations with regard to reciprocity in the execution
and fulfilment of treaties.
The undersigned flatters himself with the hope that his excellency the President
will take into his high consideration this communication, to which the undersigned
hopes for a speedy answer, as a new proof of the scrupulousness and respect with
which this nation fulfils the treaties existing with other nations. If, contrary
to this hope, the decision should not be such as the undersigned asks, he can only
declare the General Government of the Union responsible for all and every consequence
which the delay may produce. The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to
repeat to the Secretary of State the assurances, &c.
THE CHEVALIER DE ARGAIZ.
Hon. JOHN FORSYTH,
Secretary of State.
