Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER V

PACIFIC BLOCKADE 1

GREAT BRITAIN, on Behalf of DON PACIFICO, v. GREECE.

(Mixed Commission of Inquiry, 1850, 1851. 40 British and Foreign

State Papers, 635.)

On Easter Sunday, 1847, in Athens, a British subject of the Jewish faith, Don Pacifico by name, was roughly handled by a mob composed in part of soldiers, and his house was entered and sacked. Don Pacifico estimated his total losses at about £32,000, and his claim, presented to the British Ambassador, was espoused by the Foreign Office of Great Britain. It appears that it was then the custom at Athens to burn on Easter Sunday the image of Judas Iscariot. As, however, Lord Rothschild, a British subject of Jewish faith, was visiting Athens at this time, the Greek government forbade the custom. This was attributed by the populace, not to the presence of Lord Rothschild, but to the influence of Don Pacifico. Hence the outrages to his person and property.

The Greek government insisted that Don Pacifico should resort to the tribunals of Athens and that Great Britain should only espouse his claim, if there were a denial of justice, or if, after a judgment in his favor, it could not be collected from his assailants. Don Pacifico had, it appeared, been consul general of Portugal at Athens and insisted that in the destruction of his house, the documents necessary to establish a claim of some £26,000 against Portugal had been destroyed. There were other claims of Great Britain against Greece, not necessary to mention in this connection, although they were alleged to justify the aggressive action of Great Britain. The maltreatment of Don Pacifico and his alleged losses were the chief grievance. The other claims were incidental and merely swelled the bill, which, not paid by Greece, a so-called pacific blockade of the Greek coast was proclaimed January 24, 1850, resulting in the seizure and sequestration of some fifty or sixty vessels.

1 On the subject of pacific blockade and the various instances of its employment, see Albert E. Hogan's Pacific Blockade (1908).

2 The British consul at Athens informed the Greek government on that date that the commander in chief of Her Majesty's naval forces "deems it necessary to extend to Greek merchant vessels the prohibition to put to sea, which, from an anxious desire not to injure Greek commerce, has up to this moment been limited to vessels belonging to the Greek government." Albert E. Hogan's Pacific Blockade, 167-168 (1908).

On the same date, the British consul notified third states of the blockade; the material portion of the notification being as follows:

"I have, therefore, to announce to you that henceforward the commander

France, deeply interested in the welfare of Greece, offered its good offices, as a result of which an agreement was reached on July 18, 1850, between representatives of the three governments. British claims other than those of Pacifico were declared satisfied, and the claim of Pacifico for the loss of his documents establishing his rights against Portugal was submitted to an arbitral commission, consisting of three members, one appointed by Great Britain, one by Greece, the umpire by France. The mixed commission met at Lisbon in Portugal and rendered the following award on May 5, 1851:

By a Convention signed at Athens on the 18th of July, 1850, between her Britannic Majesty and His Hellenic Majesty, it was agreed and concluded that all the demands made on the government of Greece in a note of the 17th of January, 1850, having been satisfied, with the exception of the claim arising out of the loss by M. Pacifico of certain documents relating to money claims which he had to establish against the Portuguese government, His Hellenic Majesty engaged to make good to M. Pacifico any real injury (préjudice réel) which, upon a full and fair investigation, it should be proved that he had sustained by the destruction of those documents.

For the purpose of conducting the investigation it was further agreed, between the contracting parties, that two arbiters, with an umpire to decide between them in case of difference, should be appointed by the joint concurrence of the governments of France, of Great Britain, and of Greece, and that this Commission of Arbitration should report to the British and Greek governments whether any, and, if any, what amount of real injury had been sustained by M. Pacifico, by reason of the alleged loss of the documents mentioned, and the amount so reported should be the amount which M. Pacifico is to receive from the Greek government.

in chief of Her Britannic Majesty's naval forces will not permit any Greek vessel to quit a Greek port. Nevertheless any Greek vessel, having been chartered previous to the present communication to carry a cargo or part of a cargo belonging to foreign merchants will be allowed to put to sea; but this exception cannot be applied to any Greek vessel chartered by foreign merchants after the communication of this notice. The above measure in no way affects foreign vessels of any description, but it is exclusively confined to vessels under the Greek flag." Id. 168, 169.

Six days later, on January 30th, the British consul at Syra transmitted a further notice of blockade to third states, from which the following passage is taken:

"I have received orders not in any way interfere with vessels of other powers, nor even with such Greek vessels as may have been already chartered by foreign merchants; but this exemption will not be granted to any Greek ships after the present communication. All Greek vessels having on board goods belonging partly or wholly to foreign merchants will be permitted to disembark them in Greek ports, the merchant being bound to produce proof of his property therein." Id. 169, 170.

to inform you that this measure does

a The Greek government admitted that Pacifico had sustained considerable damage at the hands of the mob, and paid in satisfaction of the claims other than the loss of his documents against Portugal some two-thirds of their original amount. See Hogan's Pacific Blockade, p. 113 (1908).

In accordance with the above-mentioned Convention, the government of France appointed M. Léon Béclard, Secretary of the Legation of France at the court of Lisbon, commissioner and umpire; Her Britannic Majesty's government nominated Mr. Patrick Francis Campbell Johnston, British commissioner; and His Hellenic Majesty's government named Mr. George Torlades O'Neill, consul-general for Greece at Lisbon, as their commissioner.

The Commission, consisting of these three members, assembled and met together at Lisbon in February, 1851, and proceeded to investigate a list of claims dated Athens, December 21, 1844, and which was inclosed in a letter addressed to Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by M. Pacifico on the 26th September, 1850.

This list purported to be a statement of documents destroyed at Athens on the 4th April, 1847, relating to the claims of M. Pacifico on the Portuguese government; and a copy of it, authenticated by the signatures of the three commissioners, is appended to this report.

The commissioners, in order to facilitate the inquiry, have numbered the claims in that list, and divided them into two classes:

1st. Those which relate to losses sustained, and services rendered, by M. Pacifico during the civil war in Portugal;

2dly. Those which relate to claims for salary, expenses, voyage to Greece from Portugal, while holding the office of consul-general of Portugal in Greece.

The commissioners, in the prosecution of their duties, have endeavored to ascertain whether among those claims there were any which had not been defeated by the loss of documents carried away or destroyed during the sacking of M. Pacifico's house at Athens, and which can, therefore, still be as well established by means of official documents or records now existing in the public offices in Portugal.

The commissioners have now the honor to report that they have discovered in the archives of the Cortes at Lisbon a petition addressed by M. Pacifico to the Chamber of Deputies in 1839, and presented in the same year by one of its members, accompanied by a voluminous body of documents to prove his alleged losses, in which petition M. Pacifico prays for compensation for his sufferings.

The commissioners are satisfied, from inquiries which they established at great length and much difficulty, that the various certificates and papers attached to that petition are the originals or certified copies. of the most important documents alleged to have been destroyed at Athens.

That petition has not yet been disposed of by the Chamber of Deputies, M. Pacifico appearing to have taken no steps since its presentation in 1839, either by himself or his agents, to cause it, together with the accompanying documents, to be taken into consideration and decided by that assembly.

[ocr errors]

With reference to M. Pacifico's claims in regard to the destruction of any documents connected with his salary and other expenses during the time he held the office of consul-general of Portugal in Greece, the commissioners are of opinion that they have not been prejudiced by any such loss, and that he is still able to establish his rights, if well founded, against the Portuguese government.

The commissioners, having now stated their unanimous opinion on the above-named points, beg to add that almost all the losses of property, represented by documents alleged to have been destroyed at Athens, took place between the years 1828 and 1834, and that M. Pacifico appears to have taken no steps, although constantly in Portugal between the years 1834 and 1839, to assert his rights and claims in a legal manner; nor does it appear that any application was ever made by him to the British Minister or consular authorities in Portugal, to support his rights or to redress his wrongs.

Under all the circumstances of this case, and taking into consideration the possibility that a few documents of no great importance may have been lost when M. Pacifico's house at Athens was pillaged, and the expenses he has incurred during this investigation, the commissioners think he is entitled to receive from the government of Greece the sum of £150. for the injury he has received.

The commissioners cannot conclude their report without taking this opportunity of stating that the utmost cordiality and unanimity of sentiment has accompanied every step they have collectively taken in this very important investigation, and they trust the result of this commission will prove an additional link in the friendly relations which subsist between Great Britain and France, and that the Portuguese and Greek governments will feel that England has had but one object in view in this inquiry, namely, a fair, impartial, and honest solution of a difficult question.

*

4 Mr. Hogan, who defends energetically the action of the British government in the principal case, says that "the Portuguese Minister, in a dispatch to Baron Gros, dated March 2, 1850, admitted the liability of the Portuguese government to the amount of £197. 4s., 3d." Loc. cit. 114. A rather paltry sum, it would seem, to justify the blockade of a weak and struggling country. See, also, the case of The Forte, 5 Moore's International Arbitrations, 4925 (1863), under agreement between Great Britain and Brazil of January 5, 1863. The distinction between a blockade in time of peace and in time of war is that, in the first case, the blockading nation proceeds against the property of the state blockaded, inasmuch as peace does not give rights against neutrals, whereas, in the second case, neutral property is, according to the laws of war, subject to belligerent rights. Therefore, blockade alleged to be pacific, but which subjects neutral commerce or trade to visit and search, is only pacific in name, but in fact an act of war. This was recognized by the nations which, peaceably blockading Venezuela in 1902-03, regarded their blockade as an act of war in order to have the rights accruing to belligerents. SCOTT INT. LAW-33

CHAPTER VI

REPRISALS

A DECLARATION BY THE LORDS JUSTICES Appointing the Distribution of Prizes taken by Way of Reprizal before His Majesty's Declaration of War, 1739.

His Majesty having, on the tenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and thirty-nine, taken into his serious consideration the many and repeated depredations which had been committed, and the many unjust seizures which had been made in the West Indies and elsewhere by Spanish Guarda Costas, and ships acting under the commissions of the king of Spain, or his governors, contrary to the law of nations, and in violation of the treaties subsisting between the crown of Great Britain and Spain, whereby His Majesty's trading subjects had sustained great losses; and His Majesty having determined to take such measures as were necessary for vindicating the honour of his crown, and for procuring reparation and satisfaction to his injured subjects, was pleased, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, upon the said tenth day of July, to order, that general reprizals should be granted against the ships, goods and subjects of the king of Spain, so that as well His Majesty's fleet and ships, as also all other ships and vessels that should be commissionated by letters of marque or general reprizals, or otherwise, by his Majesty's commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain, should and might lawfully seize all ships, vessels and goods belonging to the king of Spain, or his subjects, or others inhabiting within any the territories of the king of Spain, and bring the same to judgment in any of the courts of admiralty within His Majesty's dominions.-The London Gazette, Numb. 8024, (1741).

BLAAUW POT v. DA COSTA.

(High Court of Chancery, 1758. 1 Eden, 130.)

The plaintiffs, as underwriters, by a policy of insurance made at Amsterdam, 1st February, 1729, to Elias and Solomon De Paz, had insured the ship Friendship for 18,000 guelders, or £1636. 7s. 3d. The ship was soon after seized by the Spaniards, before the declaration of war, and carried into Havannah and condemned. In the course of the following year the plaintiffs paid the sum of 18,000 guelders to Elias and Solomon De Paz. The ship had also been insured with SCOTT INT.LAW

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »