States for the northern district of Florida, proceeding under the act of 1834.1 In 1857 the Court of Claims held, Scarburgh, J., dissenting, that it could afford no relief. It was held by several Attorneys-General that the matter was, as to the executive department, in the absence of new legislation, res judicata.3 And such was the answer made by Mr. Fish, as Secretary of State, to Mr. Lopez Roberts. "I will not enter into the question," said Mr. Fish, "whether that decision [of Mr. Woodbury in 1836] was correct or erroneous, for the precedent has been so often and so long permitted to control the disposition of claims under the ninth article of the treaty of 1819 as to preclude the executive branch of this government from disregarding or reversing it. The judicial branch has declared itself incompetent to deal with the subject. It has thus become a practical necessity to await further legislation by Congress before taking any fresh action in relation to these claims." # * On March 1, 1880, President Hayes invited the attention of Congress to the subject; and on the 13th of the next May he communicated to the Senate a report of the Secretary of State with various documents. On March 1, 1881, Mr. Morgan, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported to the effect that "Congress should not interfere to discuss or decide a question which, for the present, at least, should be open to the consideration of the executive branch or of the treaty-making power." On the 14th of the preceding month Mr. Herndon, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the claims for interest. Further papers on the subject were communicated by President Arthur to the Senate April 18, 1884. 1 United States v. Ferreira, 13 Howard, 40. Case of Robert Harrison, S. Mis. Doc. 45, 34 Cong. 3 sess. Spain. CHAPTER E. THE VAN NESS CONVENTION. After the comprehensive settlement between the New Claims Against United States and Spain by the treaty of 1819, claims against the latter government continued to arise in consequence of the war between Spain and her American colonies. Indeed, on the 3d of March 1819, ten days after the conclusion of the treaty, the President approved an act of Congress which was passed with particular reference to the privateers that then scoured the seas, some in the name of Spain and others in the name of her enemies, depredating on neutral commerce. By this act the President was authorized to employ the public armed vessels of the United States "in protecting the merchant vessels of the United States and their crews from piratical aggressions and depredations." Subsequently certain decrees were issued by the Decrees of Blockade. Spanish commanders which neutral powers deemed objectionable. On the 6th of June 1821 Field Marshal La Torre gave notice that all the ports and coasts of the provinces of Maracaibo, Coro, and Barcelona would be considered as under blockade; 2 and in 1822 General Morales declared a blockade of the ports of Terra Firma, embracing the coasts of the mainland bordering on the Spanish Main. According to the report of an American naval officer the Spanish naval forces in those seas consisted at the time of a 44-ton frigate, a brig, and a schooner, which were employed in furnishing supplies to Porto Cabello. As it was impossible with these vessels, even if they had not been otherwise employed, to blockade a coast 1,200 miles in extent, privateers were fitted out at Porto Rico to capture ships sailing to and from the interdicted ports. The proceedings of these privateers, as well as of the tribunals before which they brought their captures, gave rise to numerous complaints and protests.3 Nevertheless, that these measures did not suffice to break up the prohibited intercourse is shown by the fact that on September 15, 1822, General Morales issued at Maracaibo a new decree, leveled against foreigners entering the ports of the Spanish Main in spite of the blockade, and declaring that they should, if found to be implicated in the rebellion, suffer death, while, if merely found in the country possessed by the enemy, they would be punishable with hard labor for three 3 Stats. at L. 510. 2 Br. and For. State Papers, X. 944. 3 Br. and For. State Papers, IX. 982, 987, 999. years and confiscation of their property. By a royal order of December 22, 1822, Morales was directed to revoke this decree, which he did on the 8th of the ensuing February.1 Position of Spain. tions. The measures of the Spanish commanders, though in form decrees of blockade, were hardly defended as such by the Spanish Government. The argument of blockade, which was blended in the defense of General Morillo's decrees of 1815 and 1816, was now practically abandoned. In a note to Mr. Adams of November 11, 1822, Mr. Anduaga, the Spanish minister at Washington, maintained that Spain, so long as she refused to recognize the self-styled governments of Spanish America and continued the effort to bring them back to their duty, might employ for that purpose all the means allowed by her laws and previously respected by other nations. "What,” he inquired, "did those laws prescribe before the insurrection? The entire prohibition of all foreign commerce in the Spanish provinces of America.”2 Great Britain demanded redress for the injuries to Anglo-Spanish Conven- British property, and ordered her naval forces to make reprisals on Spanish property.3 On March 12, 1823, however, she concluded with Spain at Madrid a convention, which provided for a claims commission to sit in London, and to consist of two members from each nation. If any difference arose on which they were equally divided, it was to be referred to the Spanish envoy in London and a law officer of the Crown; and if they could not agree, to one of them to be determined by lot. It is not strange that "great and almost insuperable difficulties presented themselves in respect to carrying this convention into effect;" and on October 28, 1828, a new convention was signed by which Spain agreed to make good the sum of £900,000 in specie in full of the English claims registered by the mixed commission, and Great Britain agreed to make good the sum of £200,000 for the Spanish claims similarly registered. The payments by Spain were to be made in redeemable inscriptions." Presentation of American Claims. In April 1823 Mr. Nelson, then appointed minister of the United States to Spain, was instructed to press the American claims. In January 1824, immediately after his arrival at Madrid, he presented the subject to the Spanish Government; but as there was no information in regard to the claims at Madrid, the Spanish Government instructed the authorities at Havana to report upon them. In April 1825 Mr. Alexander Everett, who had been appointed to succeed Mr. Nelson, was instructed to continue the negotiations. He proposed a convention similar to that which Spain concluded with Great Britain in 1823, but the Spanish Government declined the proposal on Br. and For. State Papers, X. 938. In revoking the decree General Morales published a law of the Cortes of June 27, 1821, inviting immigration to South America. See a decree of the Cortes of January 22, 1822, in relation to trade with Cuba. (Br. and For. State Papers, X. 865.) 2 Br. and For. State Papers, IX. 784, 788. 3 Br. and For. State Papers, IX. 897. 4 Br. and For. State Papers, XI. 44. 6 Br. and For. State Papers, XV. 900. the ground that the convention was extorted from her during the brief reign of a faction, and was unjust.1 Mission of Mr. Van October 2, 1829, Mr. Van Buren, then Secretary of State, instructed Mr. C. P. Van Ness, who had been appointed minister to Spain, to endeavor to secure the payment of a gross sum, and if he should be unable to do so, to endeavor to arrange for a mixed commission. In the following May Mr. Van Ness took up the negotiations on these lines, and made a general presentation of the claims.3 The Spanish minister of state, denying the liability Spanish Contentions. of Spain, maintained: 1. That the "unsupported blockades" of General Morales were to be considered not as blockades in the ordinary sense, but merely as a mode which that commander and others, left as they were to themselves and harassed by the enemy, adopted for the purpose of intimating to foreign nations that the laws relating to the Indies, prohibiting trade with the colonies, were in full force. He contended that the royal order of December 22, 1822, by which the blockade of General Morales was revoked, was not an admission that the measure was illegal; that the concession of trade with the colonies began on the 9th of February 1824, when the royal decree to that effect was issued; and that the armistice between Generals Morillo and Bolivar in 1820 was not a recognition of the independence of the territory occupied by the latter and did not admit free trade with such territory. As to the blockade of the Spanish Main, Spain could recognize no responsibility. The United States had recognized the independence of Colombia, and the King could not consent to be prosecuted as King of the Spanish Main by a government which no longer recognized him as the sovereign of it. 2. That the convention of 1823 with Great Britain could not be recognized as a precedent. 3. That though Spain had not resorted to recriminations, nor reverted to the charge that citizens of the United States had added fuel to the insurrection in Spanish America, it was notorious that as early as 1806 the traitor Miranda found protection, troops, and resources in New York for the purpose of revolutionizing Venezuela. Were not privateers fitted out and manned in the United States? Was it possible to estimate the losses of Spain from the early recognition or the approbation, encouragement, and support of the Spanish American insurgents in the United States? tiation. While declining on these grounds to recognize the Offer of Basis of Nego- claims "en masse," the minister of state expressed his readiness to consider on the merits any claim of an American citizen against the Government of Spain for injuries done by Spanish cruisers, or for the unlawful detention of property by the Spanish authorities. Though this expression was scarcely considered reconcilable 1S. Ex. Doc. 147, 23 Cong. 2 sess.; Br. and For. State Papers, XVIII. 2. 2S. Ex. Doc. 147, 23 Cong. 2 sess. 3 Mr. Van Ness to the Spanish minister of state, May 8, 1830, S. Ex. Doc. 147, 23 Cong. 2 sess. +S. Ex. Doc. 147, 23 Cong. 2 sess. |