Slike strani
PDF
ePub

Der Konflikt europäischer Mächte
mit Venezuela. 1902-1903*).

Nr. 12877. GROSSBRITANNIEN.

Denkschrift über die Be

schwerden gegen Venezuela.

Case of seizures by the Venezuelan gun-boat „Augusto“.

[ocr errors]

It appears from the sworn evidence of ten witnesses examined before the Attorney-General of Trinidad that on the 21st January, 1901, four boats three Venezuelan and one belonging to a British subject were at Patos Island waiting for the tide on their way to Port of Spain laden with cocoa. The boats were of the usual class which trade between Port of Spain and the neighbouring ports of Venezuela, and appear on this occasion to have been simply carrying cargo and passengers in the ordinary way to Port of Spain. There were some twenty-five persons altogether in the boats, sailors and passengers, including several British subjects. || On the morning of the 22nd the Venezuelan gun-boat „Augusto" appeared off the island, and, after remaining close in shore for some hours, summoned the people who had landed from the vessels above referred to to come on board the "Augusto". This demand not being complied with, a force of some twenty armed Venezuelans under Colonel Torres was landed on Patos, and proceeded to remove the boats and collect their cargoes. About half the passengers and crew of the trading-boats were removed on board the „Augusto“, the remainder taking refuge in the woods, where they were left without food, water, or means of leaving the island. | Representations were at once made by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Caracas with reference to this reported seizure and deportation of British subjects. A stringent inquiry was demanded, but, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no attention was paid to this demand.

*) Englisches Blaubuch Cd. 1399.

Case of the Sea Horse".

On the 26th February, 1901, John Craig, a fisherman of Trinidad, a British subject, proceeded to Patos in pursuance of his calling in his boat, the Sea Horse". Having beached his boat and landed with his boat's crew on the island, he was followed by the crew of a Venezuela Guarda Costa, armed with cutlasses and rifles, who beat one of his companions, fired at another, who, however, escaped unhurt, and finally seized the boat and its contents, leaving the men on the island without food or water. They were fortunately relieved by a passing boat two days later and taken back to Port of Spain. In this case, a strong remonstrance was addressed to the Venezuelan Government in respect of the landing of an armed force on British territory, and the assault on the persons and seizure of the property of British subjects. || On the same occasion the „Buena Fé“, a boat belonging to a Venezuelan citizen, resident in Trinidad, was seized uuder similar circumstances, and although the owner's nationality precluded support of any claim on his part, the interference with the boatmen and the seizure of the property on Patos Island constituted a grave violation of British territory. || The statements of fact were in each case supported by sworn declarations. The Venezuelan Government justified the action of their Guarda Costa by declaring that they considered Patos as belonging to Venezuela, and by stating that the „Sea Horse" was thought to be engaged in smuggling. No proof of this was, however, adduced, nor did there appear to be any reasonable ground for the assumption. This plea was subsequently amended by the further statement that the ,,Sea Horse" was suspected of landing arms, but the Venezuelan version of the fact proves that she never touched the coast and could not therefore have landed arms, while it was not even alleged that, after being chased to Patos where she was seized, she had any arms on board. || The explanations offered after six months' correspondence were wholly unsatisfactory, and, as His Majesty's Minister states in his last despatch received on this subject,,,no redress has been offered for an act which, even according to their own account (i. e., that of the Venezuelan Government), and, if their assumed possession of the island be allowed, was one of unjustifiable violence".

Case of the,,Maria Teresa“.

In January 1901 the sloop,,Maria Teresa", the property of a British subject, but flying the Venezuelan flag, was, when about to leave the Venezuelan port of Guiria, compelled to heave-to, and ordered to proceed

to Trinidad, instead of to her destination at Yrapa on the mainland. On the „Maria Teresa" proceeding to follow these instructions she was boarded by a boat from the ,,Miranda", which took off the master and two sailors, and after seizing the property on board the „Maria Teresa“ set on fire and completely destroyed her. || The Venezuelan Government, in justification of the „Miranda's" action, contended that the owner and master of the sloop had been actively engaged in assisting the revolutionists. Although the treatment of the British subjects on board the sloop afforded ground for remonstrance, His Majesty's Government, in view of these statements, which were not, however, supported by proof, forebore to press the matter strongly, as there was some evidence that the vessel had been in communication with, if not in the employ of, the revolutionary party. Further inquiry and explanations were promised.

Case of the Pastor".

[ocr errors]

The case of the Pastor", however, afforded still stronger ground for protest. On the 30th August last year the Venezuelan - owned sloop „Pastor" left Port of Spain with a cargo of goods and with three passengers, one of whom at least was a British subject. || There is some evidence to show that the ,,Pastor", in conjunction with three other boats of Venezuelan nationality, was engaged on a smuggling venture. On her arrival at Patos Bay, the Venezuelan revenue- boat Totumo" appeared on the scene, and after examining the papers and cargo of the,,Pastor" landed some of her crew on the island, seized and carried on board goods which had been there deposited by the „Pastor", and took the men engaged in the expedition as prisoners. She subsequently fired on the „Pastor", when that vessel was still in British waters. || The correspondence exchanged with the Venezuelan Government with reference to this incident made it clear that they were determined to consider and to treat Patos as belonging to the Republic. In these circumstances, it was thought expedient to record a formal protest against this renewed and gross violation of British territorial waters by a Venezuelan gun-boat which the facts that the „Pastor" was a Venezuelan vessel, and had infringed the Customs Regulations of Trinidad, were not held in any way to justify. His Majesty's Minister accordingly made a strong remonstrance with reference to this incident, but the Venezuelan Government stated that they could not make any investigation with regard to the violation of British territory, as they considered Patos Island, on which the violation of territory occurred, as their own legitimate possesion.

Case of the,,Indiana.“

A further case of the violation of British rights occurred in January last in the seizure and detention of the British-owned and registered sloop "Indiana" in the River Barima, within Venezuelan territory, the waters of which are by the terms of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Award open to the navigation of all nations in time of peace. || In this instance the vessel, which carried only a cargo of empty barrels used for the conveyance of corn to the market of Georgetown, was suspected of smuggling, seized and carried into the Venezuelan port of Amakuru, the captain escaping in a native canoe. There was no evidence to support this charge of smuggling, and the Colonial authorities, to whom the case was reported, point out that the confiscation of the vessel was an excessively severe penalty for any infraction of the Customs laws, if such were deemed to have occurred. || The representations made to the Venezuelan Government have hitherto failed to elicit any explanation.

Case of the „In Time“.

A more recent instance of a similar character is the destruction of the British vessel „In Time" by the Venezuelan gun-boat,,General Crespo“, in the Venezuelan harbour of Pedernales on or about the 1st May last. It appears that on the arrival of the gun-boat „General Crespo" in Pedernales orders were given to seize all craft in port, and this was done. No provocation or justification of this order has been assigned. The „In Time" was then fired on by the gun-boat, and an armed party from the Crespo" boarded her and broke her up. She subsequently drifted down the river and sank. || In connection with this case, His Majesty's Minister was instructed to inform the Venezuelan Government that unless they could disprove the reports received as to the destruction of this vessel, His Majesty's Government might be obliged to cease extending the hospitality of British ports to Venezuelan cruisers. || The Venezuelan Government have protested against the menacing tone" of this communication, which they consider „inadmissible", even as a simple notification.

[ocr errors]

Case of the Queen".

The seizure on the high seas of the British ship „Queen", of Grenada, reported by His Majesty's Minister in June, is the latest instance of such unwarrantable interference. || In this case it appears, from sworn evidence, that the vessel, while on her voyage from Grenada to Trinidad in ballast, was overhauled by the Venezuelan gun-boat ,,Restaurador" some 20 miles off Carupano; that after the seizure the „Queen" was towed into the

Venezuelan port of Porlamar, there stripped of her sails and papers and finally confiscated, on a mere suspicion of having carried a cargo of arms to Venezuela, the crew being put on shore and left destitute. || The master and one of the crew, after remaining there twenty-seven days, obtained a passage on a Venezuelan sloop, and found their way to La Guayra, where they reported themselves to the British Vice-Consul. | The facts having been brought to the knowledge of His Majesty's Minister, he at once addressed a representation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and requested to be informed what steps the Venezuelan Government intended to take with reference to this charge, in which more than one important question was involved".

The action of the Venezuelan Consul at Trinidad, Señor Figueredo, has also given rise to grave complaints with reference to his issuing irregular clearances, exaction of improper fees and charges, and assumption of unwarranted authority by the collection of customs dues for Venezuela in Trinidad. || He has, further, in some cases, refused to accept dispatch of vessels for Venezuela, on the ground that they belonged to persons who were uot acceptable to the Venezuelan Government, and in others is stated to have placed every sort of hindrance in the way of the dispatch of vessels, thus seriously prejudicing the trade of British subjects at Trinidad. || M. Figueredo's conduct was brought to notice especially in connection with his refusal to dispatch the British registered lighter „Euterpe", belonging to the „Compagnie Générale des Asphaltes de France", when he informed the Company that if the vessel was otherwise dispatched she would be seized or sunk as soon as she was outside British waters. || His Majesty's Minister has been instructed to protest against M. Figueredo's action, and to inform the Venezuelan Government that unless satisfactory assurances were forthcoming, no exequatur would be issued to their Consul. Of this communication no notice has been taken.

Besides these specific outrages and grounds of complaint, there are cases in which British subjects and Companies have large claims against the Venezuelan Government. | The Venezuelan Government decline to accept the explanations and assurances of His Majesty's Government with regard to the,,Ban Righ“ as in any way modifying the situation. As a result, the position of His Majesty's Legation at Caracas has been rendered for diplomatic purposes quite impracticable, as all representations, protests, and remonstrances now remain disregarded and unacknowledged. Foreign Office, July 20, 1902.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »