States have steadily adhered to principles of international neutrality; and we may well, therefore, demand the observance of those principles, or reparation for their nonobservance on the part of Great Britain.1 It becomes, therefore, perfectly legitimate to take-as is done in the British counter-case-a retrospect of the history of American neutrality so vauntingly extolled in the papers before us. It cannot be fair or just that a country in whose ports privateering against the commerce of friendly nations has been openly carried on upon the largest scale, and from whose shores armed expeditions and raids have, in so many instances, gone forth, should seek to enlist the favor of this tribunal in order to swell the damages against Great Britain, by holding itself up as a model of neutral perfection. It is not so much for this purpose, however, that I advert to the history of the past, as it is for that of showing that there is no foundation for the assumed superiority of American laws or institutions in respect of the fulfilment of neutral obligations. The use of a review of American history in this respect will readily be seen. Legislation of 1794. America undoubtedly has the credit of being the first nation that, by positive legislation, sought to restrain its subjects within the strict limits of neutrality. But those who make this boast as against Great Britain should also remember that it was through the acts of American citizens that such legislation first became necessary. The large and just mind of the greatest of American statesmen saw at once the reproach and the danger arising to his country from her ports being used for the building and equipping of privateers by American citizens, and for sending them out, manned with American crews, commissioned by the French government, to make war on British vessels, while the United States and Great Britain were at peace. For, as I have already observed, this was the mischief against which the legislation of 1794 was directed. At that time no complaint had arisen of ships of war being built for a belligerent. The complaint, again and again made by the British minister, was of "the practice," as Mr. Jefferson calls it, "of commissioning, equipping, and manning vessels in American ports, to cruise on any of the belligerent parties." The Government of General Washington was perfectly sincere in its desire to prevent American ports from being used for this purpose; and, had there always been Washingtons at the head of affairs, the well-founded complaints of Spain and Portugal, in 1816 and 1817, might never have arisen. I say "well-founded complaints," for the few vessels built or equipped in Great Britain during the late civil war bear but a small proportion to the organized and systematic privateering which was carried on from American ports at the period I am referring to. I first take the case of Spain, as it appears in the corre- Complaints of Spain. spondence set out in the third volume of the British Appendix. On the 2d of January, 1817, Don Luis de Onis, minister of Spain to the United States, thus addresses Mr. Monroe, then Secretary of State: WASHINGTON, January 2, 1817. SIR: The mischiefs resulting from the toleration of the armament of privateers in the ports of this Union, and of bringing into them, with impunity, the plunder made by these privateers on the Spanish trade, for the purpose of distributing it among those merchants who have no scruple in engaging in these piracies, have risen to such a height, that I should be wanting in my duty if I omitted to call your attention again to this very important subject. 1 United States Argument, p. 94. It is notorious that, although the speculative system of fitting out privateers, and putting them under a foreign flag, one disavowed by all natious, for the purpose of destroying the Spanish commerce, has been more or less pursued in all ports of the Union, it is more especially in those of New Orleans and Baltimore, where the greatest violations of the respect due to a friendly nation, and, if I may say so, of that due to themselves, have been committed; whole squadrons of pirates having been fitted out from thence, in violation of the solemn treaty existing between the two nations, and bringing back to them the fruits of their piracies, without being yet checked in these courses, either by the reclamations I have made, those of His Majesty's consuls, or the decisive and judicious orders issued by the President for that purpose. After setting forth depredations done by three American privateers, he continues: The consul at New Orleans informs me that the pirate Mitchell, with the vessels under his command, fitted out by different merchants at that port, of whom a Mr. Dupuy is supposed to be the principal, has lately taken several Spanish prizes to Galveston, and that from the proceeds of their sales he has remitted to the said deputies $105,000, which he has deposited in the Bank of Louisiana, after deducting the shares of the captain and crew, amounting, as is supposed, altogether to $200,000. The same consul adds that two of the prizes, one from Campeachy, and the other from Guatemala, were burned, and their crews landed by that savage monster, near Boquilla de Piedras, that they might be, as they actually were, put to death by his great friend, Villapinto, a noted rebel ringleader, who, being pursued by the King's troops, had retreated to the seashore to make his escape. Of ninety men composing these crews, only nine were saved. The consul at Norfolk informs me of the arrival there of a privateer schooner from Buenos Ayres, one of several fitted out at Baltimore, and wholly owned there; that from what he has been able to ascertain, among other vessels she plundered a Spanish ship, laden with a cargo of cochineal, indigo, and specie, to the amount of more than $200,000, and proceeded to Baltimore to divide the spoil among the concerned. The said consul, in the discharge of his duty and exercise of his rights, addressed an application to the collector of the customs, copy of which is annexed, and also of the answer of the collector, by which you will perceive that he declines this just reclamation. I could cite innumerable other cases, as well attested as those I have just stated, but I omit them, as their detail would fatigue you, without tending to demonstrate more effectually that they proceed from the non-observance by the officers of this Government of the President's proclamation, and of the treaty of limits and navigation between the two governments. On the 16th of January Don Luis writes again: I have just received information from the King's consul at New Orleans of the capture, within sight of the Balize of that port, and at little more than musket-shot from the land, of the Spanish schooner Hipolita, Captain Don Buenaventura March, by the pirate Jupiter, under the Margarita flag. To enable you fully to judge of the atrociousness of this capture, manifestly in violation of the territory of the United States, I have the honor to inclose the declaration of the captain of the said schooner, made before His Majesty's consul at the aforesaid port, by which it appears he was at anchor in the Pass of the Mississippi, and with pratique from the Balize on board, when he was boarded by the aforesaid pirate, and so inhumanly treated by him as to be left weltering in his blood upon the deck. It would be superfluous to affect your sensibility by a detail of the multiplied injuries and outrages incessantly sustained by His Majesty's subjects in these ports; they have already been admitted by the President in his message to Congress, recommending the adoption of such measures as in their wisdom may appear best calculated to repress them, thereby offering to the King, my master, a pledge that His Excellency admits the necessity of indemnifying them as far as possible. It is, however, with great regret that I have to remark on the delay in carrying such urgent measures into execution, and that the injuries complained of have not been prevented by a due observance of the laws of nations, and of the existing treaty, which, by the Constitution, has th force of law in all the courts, in consequence of its ratification by the President and the Senate.2 On the 10th of February Don Luis complains of five more privateers, belonging to ports of the States, as having taken prizes, and being engaged in cruising against Spanish ships. On the 26th of March he writes: I have just been informed that there have entered at Norfolk two pirates, under the British Appendix, vol. iii, p. 99. flag of Buenos Ayres, the principal of which is called the Independencia del Sud, armed with 16 guns and 150 men; her captain is the well-known pirate called Commodore Chaytor. The second is the schooner Romp, which, to enter into that port, has changed her name to that of Atrevida; she has a crew of 70 men, and appeared to be commanded by a person called Grinnolds. Both vessels were built and fitted out at Baltimore, belong to citizens of that place, and others in this republic, and their crews and captains are of the same. Their entrance into Norfolk has been public, to revictual, and return to their cruise against the subjects of the King, my master; but their principal object is to place in safety the fruits of their piracies, which must be of great importance, if we attend to the information from Havana, which states that they have robbed a single Spanish vessel, coming from Vera Cruz, of $90,000; and to the fact that, on the 21st of the present month, they had deposited $60,000 in the Bank of Norfolk, had landed a number of packages of cochineal, and had declared that they had taken to the amount of $290,000. I am informed that the person called Commodore Chaytor was about to set out for Baltimore, probably to settle accounts, and divide his robberies with the persons interested in the outfit. It is a circumstance worthy of remark, that these two pirates saluted the fort at Norfolk, and that it returned the salute upon the same terms as would have been done with a vessel of war of my sovereign, or of any other nation acknowledged by all independent powers.' At the same time, another vessel, the Orb, is made the subject of equally strong complaint: The pirate Orb, fitted out at Baltimore, under the name of the Congress, and flag of Buenos Ayres, commanded by Joseph Almeida, a Portuguese, and a citizen of this republic, has had the audacity to return, and enter the said port, there to deposit a part of his robberies. The piratical character of this vessel is as fully acknowledged, as it is proved that she was armed and manned with people of this country, and of others in the above-mentioned port, and that she had made different prizes in the neighborhood of Cadiz and other ports; since there now is in the port of New York the Spanish polacre, the Leona, captured by her, whose cargo, consisting of $200,000, is concealed, where it is not known; and in the same port of Baltimore there are deposited the proceeds of the Spanish brig Sereno and her cargo, captured by the same vessel. No evidence can, in my judgment, be offered which gives greater certainty to facts so notorious. If by chance anything could be added thereto, it would be the acknowledgment of their atrocities. Nevertheless, I have the mortification to say that neither this notoriety nor the reclamations of His Majesty's consul at that port have as yet been sufficient to produce those steps which are required by humanity to secure the person of this notorious pirate, to take the declarations of the crew, and to prevent their enjoying their plunder to the prejudice of the lawful owners.2 One cannot help being struck with the similarity of the complaints of the Spaniard with those of which we have lately heard so much. The ships are "pirates;" the facts are "notorious;" "no further evidence can be necessary." In like manner we have Mr. Rush answering as though it had been from Downing street: I have had the honor to receive your two notes, dated the 26th of this month, stating that you have been informed that two armed vessels which have been committing unauthorized depredations upon the commerce of Spain have recently arrived at Norfolk, and that a third, liable to the same charge, has arrived at Baltimore, thus bringing themselves within the reach of those laws against which, in the above and in other ways, it is alleged they have offended. Conformably to the constant desire of this Government to vindicate the authority of its laws and the faith of its treaties, I have lost no time in writing to the proper offieers, both at Norfolk and Baltimore, in order that full inquiry may be made into the allegations contained in your notes, and adequate redress and punishment enforced, should it appear that the laws have been infringed by any of the acts complained of. I use the present occasion to acknowledge also the receipt of your note of the 14th of this month, which you did me the honor to address to me, communicating information that had reached you of other and like infractions of our laws within the port of Baltimore; in relation to which I have to state that letters were also written to the proper officers in that city, with a view to promote every fit measure of investigation and redress. Should it prove necessary I will have the honor to address you more fully at another time upon the subjects embraced in these several notes. In the mean time I venture to assure myself, that in the readiness with which they have thus far been attended to, you will perceive a spirit of just conciliation on the part of this government, as well as a prompt sensibility to the rights of your sovereign. 2 British Appendix, p. 105. Don Luis replies as Mr. Adams or Mr. Dudley might have done: By your note of yesterday I am apprised that the President, on being informed, by the notes to which you have replied, of the audacity with which the pirates armed in this country introduce into it the fruits of their robberies, has been pleased to give suitable orders to the authorities at Norfolk and Baltimore, that having ascertained the facts which I have brought to his knowledge, they should duly proceed according to law against the violators of the laws of this republic. The district attorney for the United States at Baltimore has replied to the King's consul there, that he has no evidence upon which he can proceed against Captain Almeida; but if a witness should offer, who will depose to the facts referred to, he will proceed to order an embargo to be laid on his vessel. I am perfectly aware that good order, the personal security of individuals, and the prevention of any violence being committed upon them, require that suits should be instituted according to the rules of court; but when a crime is notorious to all, and is doubted by none, when the tranquillity and security of the State, the honor of the nation, and the respect that independent powers owe to each other, are interested in putting a stop to crimes so enormous as those I have had the honor to denounce to you, it appears to me that the magistrates are authorized to collect a summary body of information, to inquire whether the public opinion is doubtful, and if there be ground to institute a suit. The collector of the customs cannot be ignorant that the three vessels, which I have named to you, were built and fitted out at Baltimore; that they were cleared at that custom-house as Americans; that their crews were, at their departure, composed of citizens of this Union, as were their captains; and that the effects which they have landed can only come from Spanish countries. What stronger testimony, if more is wanted, than their own declaration, can be desired to proceed against these pirates? The ship's papers, the declarations of the crews, the log-book, are all testimony which can throw light upon the truth or falsehood of the crime alleged, and make it unnecessary to trouble them until it be ascertained that there is ground for proceeding judicially against them.1 Next comes a complaint of the capture of a Spanish brig by the pirate Almeida, commanding the Orb or Congress, with depositions of sailors of the captured vessel.2 These letters, like those of Mr. Adams, are accompanied by others from the local consuls, with copies of correspondence between those functionaries and the collectors of the ports. Thus Don Antonio Villalobos having called on Mr. Mallory, collector of Norfolk, to seize two noted privateers, the Independencia del Sud and the Atrevida, saying that these vessels had been "improving their equipment and considerably augmenting their crew," Mr. Mallory writes, as Mr. Edwards might have done: In reply I conceive it proper only to remark, that these vessels have not been unnoticed by me, and that, in my conduct toward them, I shall endeavor, as I have done, to observe that course which my official duties appear to me to have prescribed. In pursuing which, that I may have the aid of every light to guide me which facts can afford, and as the allegations thus made by you, in an official form, must be presumed to be bottomed on positive facts, which have come to your knowledge, you will have the goodness, I trust, to furnish me, with as little delay as possible, with the evidence of their existence in your possession.3 The Spanish Dudley replies: With regard to the evidence you require I will not hesitate to say that, as the facts I have stated are matter of public notoriety, known to everybody, and I had no reason to suppose that you were ignorant of them, I did not deem it incumbent on me to add any proof to the simple narration of them; and I was confident that, by going on to point out to you the stipulations and laws which are infringed in consequence of those facts, you will think yourself authorized to interfere in the manner requested. I will assert, sir, as a known fact, that the brig now called Independencia del Sud is the same vessel which was formerly known under the name of the Mammoth privateer, belonging to Baltimore, armed and equipped in that port, from which she sailed under the command of the same James Chaytor, who still commands her; that the very same James Chaytor was necessarily then, and cannot have ceased since to be, a citizen of the United States, is settled and has a family in Baltimore, whence his wife came down a few days ago in the packet Walter Gray, and is now in this town on a visit to her husband; that he has enlisted men in this port, many of whom are not so obscure as British Appendix, p. 107. 2 Ibid., p. 103. Ibid., p. 112. not to be generally known. I will mention, as an example, Mr. Young, of Portsmouth, who is now acting as first lieutenant on board the said brig. I will assert as a fact that the Atrevida is the very schooner known before under the name of the Romp, the same that underwent a trial for piracy before the Federal court in this State; that her present commander, Captain Grinnolds, is a native of one of the neighboring towns, and very well known in this place; and finally, that this vessel has been at one of the wharves altering her copper, which I call an improvement in her equipment. If these public facts, falling within the knowledge of every individual, require more proof than the public notoriety of them, I must request to be informed as to the nature of that proof, and also whether you are not warranted to act upon just grounds of suspicion without that positive evidence which is only necessary before a court of justice.1 The collector did not look upon the facts as sufficient to warrant any action on his part. The correspondence goes on in much the same strain. On the 19th of September, Don Luis writes to Mr. J. Q. Adams: A complaint having been laid before His Catholic Majesty's government by a part of the crew of the Spanish polacca Santa Maria, captured on her passage from Havana to Cadiz by the pirate called the Patriota Mexicano, commanded by José Guillermo Estefanos, manned with citizens of these States, and covered by their flag, under which he chased and brought to the said polacca, until, having ascertained her capture, he hoisted the insurgent flag, I have received the commands of the King my master to request of the President, through your medium, the most decisive measures for putting an end to the abuses practiced in the ports of this Union, by arming privateers to cruise against the Spanish trade, thus prostituting the flag of the United States by these predatory acts, and trampling under foot, with an unparalleled audacity, national rights and the existing treaty between Spain and these States. I therefore now renew those urgent reclamations which, on former occasions, I have submitted to the President, through your department, on this important point; and I trust that the numerous instances of these abuses and horrible depredations will induce his excellency to adopt energetic measures to restrain these excesses, which so deeply compromit the neutrality of the United States in the eyes of all nations, and are wholly repugnant to the friendship and good understanding happily subsisting between them and His Catholic Majesty. In a letter of the 2d of November, he writes: It is very disagreeable to me to have to repeat to you, sir, what, unfortunately, I have been several times under the necessity of sumbitting to the President, through the medium of your predecessors, namely, that the act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1817, has in no wise lessened the abuses by which the laws are evaded, and which render entirely illusory the laudable purposes for which they were enacted. From the greater part of the ports of these States there frequently sail a considerable number of vessels with the premeditated intention of attacking the Spanish commerce, which carry their armament concealed in the hold. It rarely happens that they can be arrested, inasmuch as the collectors of the customs say that they have not at their disposition the naval force necessary to effect it; on the other hand, armed vessels, under the flag of the insurgents, enter into the ports of the Union, and not only supply themselves with all necessaries, but also considerably increase the means they already have of destroying the trade of Spain, as has recently been the case at New York, whereby (the so-called) privateers of His Majesty's revolted provinces, which are in reality nothing more than pirates, manned by the scum of all countries, enjoy greater privileges than the vessels of independent powers. The same state of things continues in 1818. On the 9th of June, Don Luis de Onis informs Mr. Adams: At my passage through Baltimore, on my way to Philadelphia, it was represented to me by His Catholic Majesty's consul for the State of Maryland that there were in that port four pirates, or privateers, if you please so to call them, namely, the Independencia del Sud, Captain Grinnold; the Puerredon, alias Mangore, Captain Barnes; the Republicano, Captain Chase; and the schooner Alerta, Captain Chaytor. These pirates, denominated privateers, or vessels of war, of the pretended government of Buenos Ayres, have entered the port of Baltimore for the purpose of dividing the spoil resulting from their depredations on Spanish commerce, and of refitting and arming to renew these excesses on the high seas. It is a matter of universal notoriety at Baltimore that three of the above-named vessels were fitted out there, and the fourth is a schoener captured by them from Spanish subjects; it is no less so that their commanders and the greater 'British Appendix, vol. iii, p. 113. * Ibid., p. 118. |