Mr. Tassara to Mr. Seward
My Dear Sir: About the question raised last year at New Orleans on account of the asylum given on board the Spanish ships-of-war Blasco de Garay, Pinta, and Mari Gralante, to sundry political refugees from this country, I have received a despatch from the Marques de Miraflores, the present minister of state in Spain, in which, among other things, he says to me what follows:
“The right to give asylum to political refugees is in such manner rooted in the habits, in such sort interwoven with the ideas of tolerance of the present century, and has such frequent generous and beneficent applications in the extraordinary and ensanguined political contests of the times we live in, that there is no nation in the world which dares to deny this right, and, moreover, not any one that can renounce its exercise. What would become of the most eminent men of our days if, in the political tempests in which success may be against them, they could not protect themselves beneath the inviolable mantle of foreign hospitality, offering to them happily a friendly country, where they may breathe tranquil and safe; haply a shelter whose thresholds their pursuers cannot overstep, or haply, in fine, the shadow of a national flag floating in a port? In such cases it can be said that the flag which shields them is not merely the ensign of a foreign nation, but. rather the banner of humanity and civilization, under whose ample folds all those can be received who are pursued because they are enemies, rather than because they are criminals. We are empowered, therefore, and we ought to give asylum on board our vessels-of-war in the United States to political refugees. The limitation of asylum lies in the offence. Asylum ought not to serve to give impunity to those guilty of ordinary crimes; that would be to encourage crime, and no civilized nation may do that. But it may be said that it is not easy for the commander of a ship-of-war to know whether the man who presents himself on board, asking for asylum, is or not guilty of ordinary crimes. In such cases the commander should require his word of honor that he has not committed such offences. But should he give that, and afterwards turn out that he has lied, there could be no difficulty in handing over to the authorities a man who to former offences had added that of the abuse of good faith, in being wanting to his parole. And if the government of Washington wishes to acquire a perfect and positive right to the delivery to them of those guilty of ordinary crimes, it will be enabled to do so by means of a treaty of extradition, to the conclusion of which the Spanish government would not oppose itself, as it has not refused to conclude such with other states. Applying the doctrine set forth to what happened at New Orleans, and equally revering the right of asylum to political refugees, and the sovereignty of the United States, the government of her Majesty deems that of Washington is in the right in hindering the departure from its territories of persons not provided with proper passports; but that the government at Washington has no right to constitute the agents of her Majesty the executors of this resolution. It should take its precautions and use its police to prevent any leaving without passport; but if an unfortunate individual, persecuted for political causes, succeed in escape, and places his foot on the ladder of a foreign vessel-of-war, it has no right to require the commander not to receive him because he carries no passport. To require this would be the same as to completely deny asylum; because it is clear that any one who can obtain a passport from the authorities of competency thereto has no need to go into asylum.”
Respecting the matter of the sum of money alleged to have been carried on board the Blasco de Garay, the Marquis de Miraflores tells me that the matter [Page 993] is not sufficiently elucidated; that the proper papers have been called for; and if it should prove true, and that there has been some infringement of the laws of neutrality, although it cannot be doubted in any event but that the commander of the vessel acted in good faith, the most energetic measures will be taken to avoid a repetition of the act, the minister of marine having been written to upon this understanding.
Such are the frank and amicable explanations of the Marquis Miraflores upon this matter. On my part, I must hope that through them the order of Major General Butler, prohibiting the entry of Spanish ships-of-war at the port of New Orleans, which was so fitly suspended through the State Department, will be definitively revoked.
I remain, with the greatest consideration, truly, your servant,
Hon. William H. Seward.