sale. The Government of the United States might, by the exercise of due diligence, have become acquainted with the facts, and prevented the privateers from sallying forth. The authorities of the State of Maryland were evidently negligent in permitting these warlike preparations in the port of Baltimore, and as no claim can be made by Portugal against that State, all complaints founded upon the negligence of the State authorities must, of course, be made against the Government of the United States, and this Government is, therefore, as the undersigned conceives, liable for that neglect.1 To this dispatch no answer appears to have been made. The Govern ment of the United States had reiterated its refusal to refer the claims to a commission, objecting that they were "obsolete." It was, however, at the same time, pressing against Portugal a claim for compensation on account of an American privateer, destroyed in the port of Fayal in 1814-a claim, therefore, which was of still earlier date than those of Portugal, and was afterward referred to arbitration and rejected. Correspondence be Spain. The complaints and expostulations of the Spanish minister, Don Luis de Onis, were still more frequent and more vehement than the United States and those of the minister of Portugal; but the substance of them was the same. The notoriety of the acts complained of, the openness with which they were done, the toleratiou of them by the authorities, the refusals of the collectors of customs to act on evidence within their reach,3 the difficulty which the Spanish consuls experienced in obtaining any testimony against unlawful speculations in which so many persons were interested, were strongly and repeatedly insisted on. These grievances were finally summed up in a note addressed to Mr. J. Q. Adams on the, 16th November, 1818, in the course of the negotiations for the treaty of the succeeding year: Whatever may be the forecast, wisdom, and justice conspicuous in the laws of the United States, it is universally notorious that a system of pillage and aggression has been organized in several ports of the Union against the vessels and property of the Spanish nation; and it is equally so that all the legal suits hitherto instituted by His Catholic Majesty's consuls, in the courts of their respective districts, for its prevention or the recovery of the property when brought into this country, have been, and still are, completely unavailing. The artifices and evasions by means of which the letter of the law has on these occasions been constantly eluded, are sufficiently known, and even the combination of interests in persons who are well known, among whom are some holding public offices. With a view to afford you and the President more [35] complete demonstration of the abuses, aggressions, and piracies *alluded to, 1 inclose you correct lists, extracted from authentic documents deposited in the archives of this legation, exhibiting the number of privateers, or pirates, fitted out in the United States against Spain, and of the prizes brought by them into the ports of the Union, as well as of those sent to other ports, together with the result of the claims made by the Spanish consuls in the courts of this country. Among them you will find the case of two armed ships, the Horatio and Curiazo, built at New York, and detained by His Majesty's consul there, on the ground of their having on board thirty pieces of cannon concealed, with their carriages, and a crew of 160 men. On which occasion it was pretended that it could not be proved that these guns were not an article of commerce, and they finally put to sea without them, the extraordinary number of officers and crew passing for passengers. The number of privateers, or pirates, fitted out and protected in the ports of this republic, as well as of the Spanish prizes made by them, far exceeds that contained in the within lists, but I only lay before, your Government those of which I have certain and satisfactory proofs. The right of Spain to an adequate indemnity for all the spoliations committed by these privateers, or pirates, on the crown and subjects of His Catholic Majesty, is undeniable; but I now submit it to your Government only to point out the extreme necessity of putting an end to these continued acts 1 Appendix to British case, vol. iii, pp. 165, 166. Mr. Clayton to Senhor de Figanière e Morão, March 30, 1850.-Appendix to British Case, vol. iii, p. 163. 3 An instructive specimen will be found in the correspondence which accompanies the note of Don Luis de Onis to Mr. J. Q. Adams, of November 2, 1817, (see Appendix to the British case, vol. iii, p. 118.) It does not appear that any answer was returned by the Secretary of State to this application. of hostility and depredation, and of cutting short these enormous and flagrant abuses and evils, by the adoption of such effectual precautions and remedies as will put it out of the power of cupidity or ingenuity to defeat or elude them. In vain should we endeavor amicably to settle and accommodate all existing differences, and thus establish peace and good understanding between the two nations, if the practice of these abuses, and the course of these hostilities and piracies on the commerce and navigation of Spain should, as heretofore, continue uninterrupted in the United States. From the tenor of the documents now inclosed, and of the reflections suggested by the very nature and state of things, the President cannot hesitate to assent to my proposal on this subject; and, as the Congress is now in session, I feel assured that the proper opportunity is afforded for the adoption of the necessary measures I have alluded to, and which I solicit as an essential basis of securing and maintaining a mutual friendship and good understanding between the two nations.1 The list of privateers fitted out in American ports, which was inclosed in the above note, included twenty-eight vessels of different classes. Her Majesty's government may be permitted here to recall the definition of due diligence presented to the arbitrators in the case of the United States: The United States understand that the diligence which is called for by the rules of the treaty of Washington is a due diligence; that is, a diligence proportioned to the magnitude of the subject and to the dignity and strength of the power which is to exercise it; a diligence which shall, by the use of active vigilance, and of all the other means in the power of a neutral, through all stages of the transaction, prevent its soil from being violated; a diligence that shall in like manner deter designing men from committing acts of war upon the soil of the neutral against its will, and thus possibly dragging it into a war which it would avoid; a diligence which prompts the neutral to the most energetic measures to discover any purpose of doing the acts forbidden by its good faith as a neutral, and imposes upon it the obligation, when it receives the knowledge of an intention to commit such acts, to use all the means in its power to prevent it. No diligence short of this would be due; that is, commensurate with the emergency, or with the magnitude of the results of negligence. The British government may be permitted to express their belief that if this definition had been contended for in 1818 by Spain and Portugal, it would have been deemed by the Government of the United States, to require much qualification. It is alleged in the case of the United States that, by the treaty of the 22d February, 1819, compensation was made by the United States to Spain for injuries similar to those which they assert that they have sustained from Great Britain. No compensation was paid to Spain. The Government of the United States appears to confound a reciprocal renunciation, in mass, of disputed claims not ascertained and not admitted to be valid, with a payment, by set-off, of claims the validity of which is disputed on neither side. By Article IX of that treaty, for the purpose of putting an end to all differences between the two powers, each agreed to renounce all claims upon the other, the renunciation including on one side "all claims of citizens of the United States upon the government of Spain arising from unlawful seizures at sea, and in the ports and territories of Spain or the Spanish colonies;" and on the other all like claims of Spanish subjects upon the Government of the United States. On neither side was there an admission that the claims of the other were valid. On the part of the Government of the United States there was certainly no admission that it had been guilty of negligence. On the contrary, when, in the preceding negotiation, the Spanish government had asked that the American Government should pledge itself to take some measures [36] in order to remedy "the abuses which, contrary to the law of nations and contrary to what is expressly stipulated in the treaty * Appendix to British case, vol. iii, p. 131. Case of the United States, p. 158. 3 Pages 136 and 213. of 1795, daily occur in some ports of the Union, in consequence of the vague and arbitrary interpretation which it seems the measures until now adopted are susceptible of, and by means of which the law is eluded" in short, to amend its neutrality law-the refusal of the American Government was conveyed in these terms: "Of the many complaints which you have addressed to this Government in relation to alleged transactions in our ports, the deficiency has been, not in the meaning or interpretation of the treaty, but in the proof of the facts which you have stated, or which have been reported to you, to bring the cases of complaint within the scope of the stipulations of the treaty." The complaint was, that many acts had been committed which were violations of international law as well as of the treaty. The answer was, that no sufficient proof had been given of these violations. It may be observed that the claims of the United States against Spain were founded on complaints very different, and apparently of very inferior force, to those urged by Spain against the United States. It may be further remarked that the treaty of 27th October, 1795, here referred to, contained, with other provisions for the protection of Spanish commerce, an agreement that no citizen or inhabitant of the United States should apply for or take any commission or letters of marque for arming any ship to act as a privateer against Spanish subjects or their property, from any state at war with Spain, and that any person doing this should be punished as a pirate. The obligations of the United States to Spain did not rest alone on the general principles of international law, but on the express stipulations of a treaty. 4. LATER VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICAN NEUTRALITY LAWS. Later violations of the American neutrality laws. As the United States have appealed to their history as illustrating their conception of neutral duties, and of the measure of diligence which those duties require, it is necessary to refer to some later passages in that history, showing the impunity with which armed expeditions have been repeatedly, and with little or no attempt at concealment, organized within the United States, and dispatched thence against the territories of friendly nations. Filbustering expe ditions. The expeditions to which Her Majesty's government desire more particularly to call the attention of the arbitrators are: The filibustering attacks under Lopez upon Cuba; Those under Walker upon Mexico and Central America; EXPEDITIONS OF LOPEZ AGAINST CUBA. The facts with regard to the expeditions undertaken against Cuba by Lopez from the United States are as follows: On the 11th August, 1849, the President of the United States issued a proclamation stating that "there is reason to believe that Against Cuba, 1850. an armed expedition is about to be fitted out in the United States, with an intention to invade the island of Cuba or some of the provinces of Mexico," and that "the best information which the Executive has been able to obtain points to the island of Cuba as the object of this expedition;" and calling upon "every officer of this Government, 1 Don Luis de Onis to Mr. J. Q.. Adams, October 24, 1818, (appendix to British case, vol. iii, p. 129) Mr. J. Q. Adams to Don Luis de Onis, October 31, 1818, (ibid., vol. iii, p. 130.) civil or military, to use all efforts in his power to arrest, for trial and punishment, every such offender against the laws providing for the performance of our sacred obligations to friendly powers." The Spanish adventurer, Lopez, whose preparations for a marauding invasion of Cuba, with a view to its annexation to the Lopez's first expeUnited States, had given rise to this proclamation, con- dition, 1850, tinued them undeterred. On the 7th May, 1850, he left New Orleans in a steamer with about 500 men, accompanied by two other vessels, and, on the 17th, landed at Cardenas, a small town on the northwest side of the island. Lopez occupied the town, but shortly afterward troops arrived from Havana, and he was compelled to re-embark, and escaped to the United States. On the 27th May Lopez was arrested; but, no delay being granted by the district judge to procure evidence against him, he was discharged amid the cheers of a large crowd. On the 15th July, forty-two of the persons who had been engaged with him in the attempted invasion, and who had been taken prisoners, were liberated by the Spanish authorities, and were taken to Pensacola by the United States ship Albany. [37] *On the 21st July, the grand jury at New Orleans found a true bill against Lopez and fifteen others, for violating the act of 1818. The American Government, however, failed in making out its case against one or two of the parties, and finally abandoned the prosecu-. tion.1 No sooner was Lopez at liberty, than he set to work to organize another expedition,, of which an account is given by the President of the United States in his message to Congress of the 2d of December, 1851. Since the close of the last Congress, certain Cubans and other foreigners resident in the United States, who were more or less concerned in the previous invasion of Cuba, instead of being discouraged by its failure, have again abused the hospitality of this country by making it the scene of the equipment of another military expedition against that possession of Her Catholic Majesty, in which they were countenanced, aided and joined by citizens of the United States.*** Very early in the morning of the 3d of August a steamer called the Pampero, departed from New Orleans for Cuba, having on board upward of 400 armed men, with evident intentions to make war upon the authorities of the island. This expedition was set on foot in the palpable violation of the laws of the United States. Its leader was a Spaniard, and several of the chief officers, and some others engaged in it, were foreigners. The persons composing it, however, were mostly citizens of the United States. The steamer in which they embarked left New Orleans stealthily and without a clearance. After touching at Key West, she proceeded to the coast of Cuba, and on the night between the 11th and 12th of August, landed the persons on board at Playtas, within about twenty leagues of Havana. The main body of them proceeded to, and took possession of, an inland village, six leagnes distant, leaving others to follow in charge of the baggage, as soon as the means of transportation could be obtained. The latter having taken up their line of march to connect themselves with the main body, and having proceeded about four leagues into the country, were attacked, on the morning of the 13th, by a body of Spanish troops, and a bloody conflict ensued; after which they retreated to the place of disembarkation, where about fifty of them obtained boats and re-embarked therein. They were, however, intercepted among the keys near the shore by a Spanish steamer cruising on the coast, captured, and carried to Havana, and after being examined before a military court, were sentenced to be publicly executed, and the sentence was carried into effect on the 16th of August. * According to the record of the examination, the prisoners all admitted the offences charged against them, of being hostile invaders of the island. At the time of their trial and execution the main body of the invaders was still in the field, making war upon the Spanish authorities and Spanish subjects. After the lapse of some days, being overcome by the Spanish troops, they dispersed on the 24th of August; Lopez, their leader, was captured some days after, and executed on the 1st of September. Many of his remaining followers were killed, or died of hunger and fatigue, and the rest were made prisoners. 'Appendix to British case, vol. iii. Report of neutrality commission, p. 34. But what gives a peculiar criminality to this invasion of Cuba is, that under the lead of Spanish subjects, and with the aid of citizens of the United States, it had its origin, with many, in motives of cupidity. Money was advanced by individuals, probably in considerable amounts, to purchase Cuban bonds, as they have been called, issued by Lopez, sold, doubtless, at a very large discount, and for the payment of which the public lands and public property of Cuba, of whatever kind, and the fiscal resources of the people and government of that island, from whatever source to be derived, were pledged, as well as the good faith of the government expected to be established. All these means of payment, it is evident, were only to be obtained by a process of bloodshed, war, and revolution. None will deny that those who set on foot military expeditions against foreign states by means like these are far more culpable than the ignorant and the necessitous whom they induce to go forth as the ostensible parties in the proceeding. These originators of the invasion of Cuba seem to have determined, with coolness and system, upon an undertaking which should disgrace their country, violate its laws, and put to hazard the lives of ill-informed and deluded men. You will consider whether future legislation be necessary to prevent the perpetration of such offences in future. WALKER'S EXPEDITIONS AGAINST MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA. The spirit of reckless adventure which the Government of the United States had been unable to repress in 1851 and 1852 found vent in the following year in another direction. Walker's expedi The leader of the new enterprise was a citizen of the United States named Walker, who put himself at the head of tions against Mexico a band of "filibusters," as they were termed, and deter1853, 1855, 1897, 1858, mined on the conquest of the Mexican possessions in Low1859, and 1860. er California. and Central America, Against Mexico, 1853. The attempt was made in October, 1853, by an expedition from San Francisco. The filibusters seized the town of La Paz, killed seven of its defenders, and wounded others, and committed various excesses. They were re-enforced by another expedition, which sailed in the Anita from San Francisco in December, but were eventually driven out of the country. The disturbed state of Central America made it the next tempting prey, and schemes were openly planned in the United States by socalled "transit" and "emigration" companies, for taking forcible possession of it. Walker was again put in command, and sailed from San Francisco on the 4th of May, 1855, with his filibusters. He arrived at Realejo on the 15th of June, and, after various adventures, dur[38] ing which he assumed the title of President of Nicaragua, and was recognized in that capacity by the United States representative, he was surrounded at Rivas by the native forces in May, 1857. Through the mediation of the commander of the United States ship of war Saint Mary's, he was allowed to surrender unmolested, and to be conveyed away on board that vessel, with the remnant of his followers. On reaching the United States, he began to recruit for a fresh expedi tion, and his preparations became so notorious as to call for the following circular to the district attorneys and marshals from General Cass, the United States Secretary of State: the local authorities DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 18, 1857. From information received at this Department, there is reason to believe that lawless persons are now engaged, within the limits of the United States, in Circular requiring setting on foot and preparing the means for military expeditions to to use due diligence be carried on against the territories of Mexico, Nicaragua, and Costa to prevent these ex- Rica, republics with whom the United States are at peace, in direct violation of the sixth section of the act of Congress approved 20th April, 1818; and under the eighth section of the said act it is made lawful for the President, or such other persons as he shall empower, to employ the land or naval forces of the United States, and the militia thereof, "for the purpose of preventing the carrying on peditions. |