View Document Frames
U.S. Congress. House. Spanish Schooner L' Amistad. 26th Congress., 1st sess., 1840.H. Doc. 185 annex.
(To be annexed to Doc. 185.)
SPANISH SCHOONER L'AMISTAD
_____
JULY 2, 1840.
Laid before the House by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
_____
WASHINGTON, 22 de Octubre, de 1839.
El infrascrito, enviado extraordinario y ministro plenipotenciario de S. M. Catolica
tiene, la honra de recorder a S. S. el Senor Secretario de Estado del Gobierno General
de la Union, que su antecesor le paso una nota su fecha 6 de Setiembre ultimo, en
la cual refirio el suceso entonces reciente y notorio, de la captura de la goleta
Amistad, manifesto su agradecimiento por la conducta observada por el Capitan Thomas
A. Gedney, y demas oficiales del bergantin de guerra Washington, y paso en seguida
a hacer su reclamacion, devidida en cuatro puntos, apoyandrse en el tratado vigente
de 1775, y mas particularmente en los articulos 8, 9, y 10 de decho tratado, que
quedaron en toda su fuerza y vigor por la declaracion, ad hoc, del articulo 12 del
tratato de 1819. Seria ocioso, y aun molesto, repetir en este escrito los cuatro
dichos puntos, y el tenor do estos tres articulos. Anadro aquel ministro varias consideraciones
politicas de mucho peso, si su reclamacion hubiese podido necesitar de mas apoyo
que el claro e innegable derecho que le concedia el tratado. Desde a quel momento
hasta el 27 de Setiembre, dia en que ceso en sus funciones; no dio mas paso en este
asunto. La misma conducta observaba el infrascrito, y se proponia observar, esperando
con confianza la resolucion definition de este Gobierno, que podia si dilatarse,
pero jamas temerse no fuese en un todo aneglada a la justicia. Doloroso le es, por
tanto, al abajo firmado verse obligado a cambiar su marcha y el Senor Secretario
de Estado se persuadira facilmente, que para ello debe haber mediado algun nuevo
incidente. Este del que ya han hablado los periodicos de New York, y posteriormente
los demas de estos Estados ha sido el aprisionamiento de los Senors Don Jose Ruiz
y Don Pedro Montes en la carcel publica de Neuva York. Adjunta hallara S. S. copia
de siete documentos relativos a este acontecimiento y son los siginentes:
Nos. 1, 2, y 3.—Declaraciones de tres hombres de color apresados en la goleta Amistad.
Nos. 4 y 5.~Juramento de los Senors Lewis Tappan y George R. Barker.
Nos. 6 y 7.—Antos de prision firmados por Theodore Sedgwick, jun., Joseph Hoxie,
y C. A. Clinton, clerk.
Cuya devolucion reclama el abajo firmado, despues que S. S. se haya enerado de su
contenido u ordenado sa car copia de ellos.
Facil seria demostrar la ilegalidad de este arresto, cuyo anto ha sido tal vez arrancado
por supresa del attorney; del mismo modo que seria facil demostrar la ignorancia
del juramentado Tappan, al asegurar que el Ruiz es conocido por el nombre de Pipi
(en Ingles pai pai) cuando en toda. Espana sera como todos los Joses conocido por
el diminutivo de Pepe; y de agui resulta haber sido preso un Pepe en vez de
un Pipi lo que no creo permite la ley. En cuanto a las declaraciones de los
hombres de color, seria aun mucho mas facil demostrar la poca exactitud; mas este
no es el animo del representante de S. M. C. quien, suponiendo por un instante, fuesen
exactas las quejas que ellos presentan, pregunta ? De don de le viene a ningun tribunal
extrangero la facultad de juzgar delitos o faltas, cometidos fuera de su jurisdiccion?
Cuands se cometieron estas? La goleta Amistad dio la vela de la Havana, el 28 de
Junio a las 4 de la tarde, en la noche del 30 del mismo mes, los deponentes eran
ya duenos del buque, y Ruiz y Montes sino sus esclavos a lo menos sus cautivos. Luego
si estos han cometido faltas si les han hecho ofensas, o ha sido en la Habana, o
en los dos primeros dias de navigacion y en ambos casos, sola a los tribunales que
administran justicia en nombre de S. M. C. es a los que pertenece jazgarlas, pues
si se han cometido es solamente bajo su jurisdiccion. Debe observarse ademas que
los tres hombres de color, en la identidad de sus declaraciones, que no parece sino
haber sido dictadas por uno mismo, declaran su estado de esclavitud, confesando fueron
vendidos, y cuando se ha considerado a un esclavo en ningun pays, ni en ninguna epoca
de la historia en el goce de los derechos civiles? Gran responsibilidad debe pesar
sobre la autoridad judicial que ha ordenado en este caso, la prision de estos dos
subditos Espanoles!
[2]
No cree el Ministro de S. M. la Reyna de Espana sea necessario a la sabia penetracion
del Senor Secretario de Estado del Gobierno General de la Union, mas que esta sencilla
indicacion, para convencerse de que aqui se ha querido armar un proceso civil a dos
Espanoles que estan bajo la proteccion de este Gobierno, proteccion que ellos mismos
hen querido venir a buscar y con que fin ? Con el de embrollar la cuestion principal,
esto es la del crimen cometido en la goleta Amistad; sobre la cual, la legacion de
S. M. hizo su reclamacion en 6 de Setiembre ultimo, y el actual Ministro de S. M.
Catolico la reproduce ahora ana diendo que solo puede reconocer en los tribunales
de estos Estados la facultad de averiguar el hecho esto es si en la d'ho goleta hubo
en la noche del 30 de Junio, insurreccion motin asesinatos. Probado este hecho (que
el Infrascrito cree lo este ya) al poder executivo, le corresponde el complimiento
del Tratado, en el que tan claramente se halla estipulado lo que debe hacerse en
este caso, que no parece sino que redactarlo se tuvo ya previsto.
En vista pues de todo lo en puesto el abajo firmado Ministro de S. M. Catolico se
ve en la dura precision de protester altamente y con toda la energia necessaria contra
el auto de prision decretado contra, Don Jose o Joseph o Pepe Ruiz, y Don Pedro Montes,
y pide, que usando el Poder Executivo de la Union de los Medios que las leyes, y
muy particularmente la del habeas corpus les of ofrezcan; disponga la inmediata libertad
de dichos dos Espanoles con el resarcimiento de danos y perjincios que por este auto
se les hubiere irrogado.
Y en cuanto a la cuestion principal cual es la devolucion de la goleta Amistad con
todo su cargamento, espera que el Gobierno haya tomado en consideracion la nota de
6 de Setiembre, y se lisengea de su feliz resultado confiado en la reclitud del gabinete,
y en su escrupulosidad en el cumpliamiento de los tratados.
En los momentos en que el corazon de la augusta Regna Gobernadora se gozaba el ver
el termino de la guerra civil, y asegurado el trono de su Augusto Hija, le estaba
reservado a su Ministro en los Estados el dolorozo deber de acibarar su regocijo
participando la como lo hizo con fecha del 19, el desagredable incidente que ha motivado
esta comunicacion. El deseo de calmer la inquietud que esta noticia pueda causar
a S. M. unido al de aliviar la suerte de los dos presos, excitan al abajo firmado
a suplicar a S. S . el Senor Secretario de Estado, se sirva tomar en su alta consideracion
cuante deja enpuesto y facilitarle con una pronta contestacion el medio de satisfacer
tan justos deseos los que quedarian completamente cumplidos, si fuese tan feliz que
pudiese transmitirla a su gobierno por el paquete que de be dar la vela para el Havre,
en 1 de Noviembre proximo
El infrascrito se aprovecha de esta ocasion para reiterar a S. S. al honorable Senor
John Forsyth, las seguridades de su perfectisima consideracion.
PEDRO ALCANTARA DE ARGAIZ.
Al honorable Senor JOHN FORSYTH,
Secretario de los Estados Unidos.
[Anexo a la Nota de 22 de Octubre, 1839.]
El Ministro Plenipotenciario de S. M. C. para demostrar aun mas claramente, la falta
de jurisdicion del tribunal de Neuva York en el caso de que ha hablado en su nota
de 22 Octubre de 1839, apelara a unu parte del articulo 7 del tratado de 1795, dice
asi: "Y en los casos de aprehension detencion o arresto, bien sea por deudas
contrahidas a ofensas cometidas por algun ciudadano o subdito de una de las
partes contratantes en la jurisdicion de la otra, se procedera unicamente
por orden y autoridad de la justicia y segun los tramites ordinarios seguidos en
semejantes casos." Expresio unius est exclusio alterius. Es claro que
las altas partes contratantes no pudieron mi quisieron, ceder la jurisdicion de sus
respectivos territorios, y asi las ofensas de que se quejan, los negros al tribunal
de Neuva York, han debido no ser escuchadas, por no haber sido cometidas en su jurisdicion.
[3]
_______
Translation of a note from the Spanish envoy Argaiz.
WASH1NGTON, October 22, 1839.
The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of her Catholic Majesty, has the honor to remind the honorable Secretary of State of the Federal Government of the Union, that the predecessor of the undersigned addressed to the Secretary, on the 6th of September last, a note, in which he related the occurrence (then recent and universally known) of the capture of the schooner Amistad. He expressed his satisfaction at the conduct of Captain Thomas Gedney and other officers of the brig of war Washington, and then proceeded to state his demand, under four heads, as made in virtue of the existing treaty of 1795, and especially of the eighth and tenth articles thereof, which remain in full force and vigor by the declaration to that effect in the twelfth article of the treaty of l8l9. It would be an unnecessary and tedious labor to repeat those four heads or points, and those three articles, in the present note. The minister added many other political observations of much weight, though his demand did not appear to need any other support than that which it derived from the clear and undeniable right allowed by the treaty. From that period to the 27th of September, the day on which his functions ceased, he did nothing more in this affair. The undersigned observed the same conduct; and he proposed to persevere in it, confidently expecting the definitive resolution of this Government, which might indeed be delayed, though there could be no fear that the affair would not be settled conformably, in all respects, with justice. The undersigned, however, with the utmost regret, finds himself obliged to change his course; and the Secretary of State will be easily persuaded that he could only have been induced to do so by some unexpected occurrence. This occurrence, which the newspapers of New York, and subsequently, those of other parts of the United States have already made public, was the imprisonment of Don Jose Ruiz and Don Pedro Montes in the common jail of New York. You will find hereunto annexed copies of seven papers relative to this occurrence, which are, Nos. 1, 2, and 3, depositions of three men of color, taken on board the schooner Amistad--4 and 5, affidavit of Messrs. Lewis Tappan and Geo. R. Barker--6 and 7, orders for imprisonment, signed by Theodore Sedgwick, jr., attorney, Joseph Hoxie, C. A. Clinton, clerk; which papers the undersigned requests the honorable Secretary will return, so soon as he shall have examined them, or had copies made from them.
[4]
It would be easy to demonstrate the illegality of these arrests, the orders for which
have been possibly obtained from the attorney by surprise; as it would, also, be
easy to show the ignorance of the declarant, Tappan, in declaring that Ruiz is known
by the name of Pipi, whereas he would have been known and distinguished throughout
Spain, as all other Joses are, by the diminutive of Pepe; and thus it appears that
a Pepe has been imprisoned instead of a Pipi , which, I believe, the
law does not permit. With regard to the testimony of the men of color, it would be
still easier to prove how far they are from accurate; but this is not the object
of her Catholic Majesty's representative, who, supposing for a moment that the complaints
made by these persons were accurate, asks how a foreign court comes to have the right
of taking cognizance of crimes or faults committed out of its jurisdiction? When
were these acts committed? The schooner Amistad sailed from Havana on the 28th of
June, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon; on the night of the 30th of the same month,
the deponents were masters of the vessel, and Ruiz and Montez were, if not their
slaves, at least their prisoners. Now, whether the last named persons have committed
wrongs, or have themselves been wronged, either in Havana, or within two days' sail
of that place--in any of these cases, the courts administering justice in the name
of her Catholic Majesty alone have the right to take cognizance of them; since, if
those acts were committed, they were committed entirely and only under the jurisdiction
of these courts. It should, moreover, be observed that the three men of color in
their depositions, which are so identical as to appear to have been dictated by one
and the same individual, declare their state of slavery by confessing that they have
been sold. Now, when, in what country, at what period of history, has a slave been
considered as enjoying civil rights? How much responsibility must rest on the judicial
authority which has ordered, in such a case, the imprisonment of these Spanish subjects.
Her Catholic Majesty's minister does not consider it necessary to do more than point
out these circumstances to one of so much sagacity and penetration as the honorable
Secretary of State of the Federal Government of the Union, in order to convince himself
that an attempt has been in this case made to institute a civil proceeding against
two Spaniards who are under the protection of this Government, a protection under
which they themselves endeavored to come and place themselves. And what is the object?
it is to complicate the main question, that is to say, the question of the crime
committed on board the schooner Amistad, upon which her Catholic Majesty's legation
made its complaint on the sixth of September last, and on which the present minister
of her Catholic Majesty is now treating; that minister adds moreover, that he can
admit no other right on the part of the courts of this country than that of ascertaining
the fact whether or not insurrection, mutiny, and murders, were committed on the
night of the 30th of June, on board the said schooner. The fact of the commission
of such acts being proved (and the undersigned conceives that it has been so), the
Executive Power has only to fulfil the treaty, wherein all that should be done in
this case, is so clearly expressed, that its occurrence would seem to have been foreseen
when that treaty was drawn up.
[5]
Under all the circumstances herein set forth, the undersigned, minister of her
Catholic Majesty, finds himself under the disagreeable necessity of protesting fully
and with all necessary energy, against the order issued for the imprisonment of Don
Jose Ruiz, and Don Pedro Montes, and he asks the Executive Power of the Union to
use all the means which it derives from the laws, most especially from the law of
habeas corpus , and thus direct the said Spaniards to be liberated, and to
be indemnified for the losses and injuries which they have sustained from this act.
With regard to the main question, that is to say, to the restoration of the schooner
Amistad, and her whole cargo, the undersigned hopes that the Government will have
taken into consideration the note of September 6th; and he flatters himself that
the result will be favorable to his wishes, from his confidence in the rectitude
of the cabinet, and the scrupulousness,with which treaties are fulfilled by it.
At the moment when the heart of the august Queen Governess is filled with delight
on account of the termination of a civil war, and the assurance of the throne of
her august daughter, her minister in the United States has to perform the painful
duty of diminishing her happiness by communicating to her as he did by letter on
the 19th instant, the disagreeable event which forms the subject of this communication.
The desire of calming the disquiet which this news may occasion in the mind of her
Majesty, together with that of alleviating the lot of the two prisoners, urge the
undersigned to entreat you, Mr. Secretary of State, to take into consideration what
he has here set forth, and to afford him the means, in a prompt reply, of satisfying
those just desires, which will be completely done if he is able to transmit such
a reply to his Government, by the packet sailing for Havre on the 1st of November
next.
The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to repeat to the honorable Mr. John
Forsyth the assurances of his most perfect consideration.
PEDRO ALCANTARA DE ARGAIZ.
Hon. JOHN FORSYTH,
Secretary of State, United States.
[Annexed to the note of October 22, 1839.]
Her Catholic Majesty's minister plenipotentiary, in order to show still more clearly
that the court of New York has not jurisdiction in the case of which he spoke in
his note of October 22, 1839, will refer to a part of the seventh article of the
treaty of 1795: the words of that article are: "And in all cases of seizure,
detention, or arrest for debts contracted, or offences committed by any citizen
or subject of the one party within the jurisdiction of the other, the same
shall be made and prosecuted by order and authority of law only, and according to
the regular course of proceedings usual in such cases."
Expresio unius est exclusio alterius. It is clear that the high contracting
parties neither could have ceded, nor have wished to cede, the jurisdiction of her
respective territories, and thus the complaints of offences brought by the negroes
before the court of New York, should not have been listened to, as the alleged offences
were not committed within the jurisdiction of that court.
