Mr. Wilson to Mr.
Seward
No. 33.]
Legation of the United States,
Caracas,
March 4, 1867.
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that, on
the 5th day of November, 1866, I addressed a note to Mr. Seijas, a copy
of which is enclosed herewith, (enclosure 1,) in which I inquired as to
the steps taken by the government of Venezuela for the arrest and trial
of the parties implicated in the killing of Captain John W. Hammer and
Julius de Brissot, and the wounding of Joseph Stack-pole, and also for
the indemnification of the widows and legal representatives of the
sufferers.
On the 17th day of November, 1866, I received a despatch from Mr. Seijas,
a copy of which and translation of the same is enclosed herewith,
(enclosure 2,) advising me that he had urgently demanded information in
regard to the matter, and promising an answer as to other inquiries. Not
having heard anything further, on the 28th December, 1866, I addressed a
second note to Mr. Seijas, a copy of which is enclosed herewith,
(enclosure 3,) in which I called the attention of Mr. Seijas to the fact
that my note of the 5th November last was without reply, and expressed
regret at the apparent inattention of the government of Venezuela in
this matter; also that more than two years had elapsed since the
occurrence of this affair, and that the facts had again and again been
presented to the Venezuelan government without any result; that, in the
mean time, the widows and children of the sufferers had been reduced to
great poverty; and that, while this was the case, the alleged guilty
parties retained the confidence and support of the government; and that,
under these circumstances, I regarded it as my duty to present again the
instructions given to my predecessor, Mr. Culver, and also expressed the
desire that prompt action would be taken as to the payment of the
indemnification.
[Page 798]
After having waited a reasonable time, and not having received any reply,
I again, on the 25th of January, 1867, addressed Mr. Seijas a third
note, a copy of which is enclosed herewith and marked enclosure 4, in
which Mr. Seijas was informed that it was expected that this affair
should be seriously considered by himself and the government of
Venezuela.
Afterwards, on the 26th of January, 1867, I received a reply from Mr.
Seijas, a copy of which despatch is herewith enclosed, (enclosure 5,)
stating that his government considered: 1st. That the deaths of Captain
John W. Hammer and Julius de Brissot were a mere accident, resulting
from a combat between the forces of General Garcia and others who had
rebelled against his authority, and that it was an act wholly foreign to
its administrative organs and without the sphere of its political
action. 2d. That, even supposing murder had been committed, still the
representatives of the American sufferers, or the sufferers themselves,
would be entitled to no indemnification; for, according to the general
and to the particular principle adopted in the privileged decree, the
Americans employed in the navigation of the Orinoco and Apure rivers had
no right to greater protection than the native citizens, and that, as no
indemnification had ever been paid to the representatives of Venezuelans
who perished in the fight at Apurito, there was no reason why the
representatives of the American sufferers should be so entitled. 3d.
That, whether the deaths in question were the result of mere accident or
“murder,” the commission, shortly to be organized under the convention
between the United States and Venezuela, was the proper tribunal to
decide upon all the questions arising in this affair.
On the 25th of February, 1867, I addressed a fourth note to Mr. Seijas, a
copy of which is enclosed herewith, (enclosure 6,) in which I replied at
length to the views of his government, and concluded by demanding the
arrest and trial, without delay, of Generals Garcia, Sosa, and Santos
Mendez, implicated in the murders, and the payment into this legation of
$100,000 for indemnification.
It is possible that some of the positions which I have assumed may be
incorrect. I am led to this conclusion from reading, since I addressed
my last note to Mr. Seijas, the opinion of the Attorney General of the
United States as to the question of indemnification of American citizens
for losses sustained during the bombardment of Valparaiso.
But, while I may have stated the general principle as to indemnification
of foreigners for losses, who are willingly within an enemy’s territory,
incorrectly, still, as the facts in this case are wholly different from
those to which the opinion of the Attorney General referred, its
application consequently will not hold good in this affair.
I also enclose an extract in the original, and a translation of the same,
from the address of President Falcon, issued on the 10th day of August,
1866, from which it will be seen that the views of the President at that
time were entirely different from those communicated in the despatch of
Mr. Seijas. This extract is enclosure 7.
I also enclose herewith, in the original and translation, an order
(enclosure 8) issued by this government on the 26th of January, 1866,
directed to the national treasurer in Ciudad Bolivar, to pay to General
Arismendi, at that time President of Guayana, 25,000 pesos out of the
receipts of the custom-house in that city. I am informed that this order
was made for the benefit of Mrs. Hammer, and the amount was to be paid
her in the expectation, on the part of this government, that as Mrs.
Hammer was the only influential survivor of the sufferers, her
acceptance of that amount would conclude the whole affair.
General Arismendi being shortly after deposed from the presidency, the
order was never paid, and still remains unpaid.
I, however, when I learned of this arrangement, and also of another
similar arrangement subsequently to pay Mrs. Hammer ten thousand pesos,
informed
[Page 799]
Mr. Seijas
verbally, that the government of the United States had not selected
General Arismendi as its agent in this affair, and that I would
recognize no payment except made through the legation of the United
States.
Doubtless it was to this order that President Falcon referred in his
address to the people of Venezuela in the extract enclosed when he
alluded to the prudent and equitable action of the national government
in avoiding this international difficulty. I also enclose herewith in
the original, and translation of the same, the proceedings* of a meeting of consuls and foreign
residents held at Ciudad Bolivar, on the 12th of November,1865,
enclosure 9.
I also enclose herewith, copies of the notes * following, namely: Mr.
Culver to Mr. Seijas, of the date of November 13th, 1865; the reply of
Mr. Seijas, of date of November 25th, 1865 Mr. Culver’s note* of January
20th, 1866, to Mr. Seijas; Mr. Culver’s despatch* to the State
Department, No, 143, of the date of January 25, 1866; despatch† to Mr. Culver, No.
115, from Department of State, of date of March 2, 1866; and Mr.
Culver’s note to Mr. Rodrigues, acting minister of foreign relations, of
date of April 11, 1866—for the purpose of placing the entire
correspondence in regard to this affair before you at once for your
consideration. This correspondence is marked enclosure 10 in No. 33, and
numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
In submitting this case to you for final action, I beg to say that if my
proceedings are approved, I fear no favorable results can be obtained
from this government unless the most serious steps are taken on the part
of the government of the United States. Indeed, in my opinion, nothing
less than the appearance, at least, of an armed force, will prove
sufficient to call forth action.
It is unfortunately too true, that this government does not appear
willing to act in any matter, much less in a question of this magnitude,
except under compulsion. By its own reluctance it has more than once
subjected itself to hurmiliations, and besides the payment of claims of
doubtful character, thereby rendering itself incapable of fulfilling
just obligations. Indeed, so much has this been the case, that now the
government of this unfortunate country seems paralyzed and impotent; as
likely to act in a wrong as a right course, in the payment of an unjust
claim as well as a just one; in fact, to do anything which a superior
power compels it to do.
Without determining whether this affair demands a resort to severe
measures, I would say that recent events have made its conclusion
peculiarly desirable. The working of the gold mines of Guayana
(surpassing, it is said, California in richness) will undoubtedly induce
many Americans to emigrate to that region of Venezuela, and consequently
their protection in person and life will become of the first and highest
importance.
I respectfully ask the instructions of my government in this matter.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C
Mr. Wilson to Mr. Seijas
Legation of The United
States, Caracas,
November 5, 1866.
Sir: The undersigned, minister resident of
the United States, has the honor to ask of your excellency what
steps have been taken by the government of Venezuela for the arrest
and trial of Generals Sosa, Juan Santos Mendez, and others,
implicated in the murder of Captain
[Page 800]
John W. Hammer, Julius de Brissot, and the
wounding of Joseph Stackpole, citizens of the United States, at
Apurito, in October last. Also, what provision, if any, has been
made to indemnify the widows and children or representatives of the
sufferers.
The undersigned renews to Mr. Seijas the assurance of his
distinguished consideration.
His Excellency Rafael Seijas, Minister of
Foreign Relations, &c., &c., &c.
[Translation.]
UNITED STATES OF VENEZUELA, MINISTRY
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, CENTRAL SECTION—No. 555.
Mr. Seijas to Mr. Wilson
Caracas,
November 17, 1866,
3d year of the Law and 8th of the Independence.
The undersigned, minister of foreign affairs of the United States of
Venezuela, in virtue of the despatch which, on the 5th of this
month, was addressed to him by the minister resident of the United
States, has urgently demanded the information that Mr. Wilson
requires regarding the death of Captain Hammer and Julius de
Brissot, and the wounds of Joseph Stackpole.
The undersigned thinks that he will soon be able to inform Mr. Wilson
in respect to this matter and to the other inquiries made by
him.
In the mean time, the undersigned renews to Mr. Wilson the assurances
of his distinguished regard. God and federation!
Mr. Wilson to Mr. Seijas
Legation of the United
States, Caracas,
December 28, 1866.
Sir: The undersigned, minister resident of
the United States, would respectfully call the attention of your
excellency to the fact that on the 25th day of November, 1866, he
had the honor to address a communication to your department asking
what steps had been taken by the government of Venezuela for the
arrest and trial of Generals Sosa, Juan Santos Mendez, and others
implicated in the murder of J. W. Hammer, Julius de Brissot, and
others, citizens of the United States, at Apurito, and also what
provision, if any, had been made to indemnify the widows and
children or representatives of the sufferers.
The reply of your excellency of the 17th of November last,
acknowledging the receipt of the communication of the undersigned,
also informed him that the matter would shortly receive the
attention of the government; since which time the undersigned has
not been further advised by your excellency. The undersigned cannot
but express his regret at this delay and apparent inattention of the
government of Venezuela.
It is now more than two years since, in an attack on the steamer
Apure, the lives of these American citizens were wantonly and
without provocation sacrificed. The facts have again and again been
presented to the government of Venezuela for its consideration, but
without any result that can in any manner be recognized by the
government of the United States.
In the meanwhile the widows and children of the victims have been
reduced to great poverty and suffering; and while such is the case,
the undersigned is informed that the alleged guilty parties, instead
of being arrested, tried, and punished, retain their respective rank
and command in the Venezuelan army. The undersigned cannot but
regard this as a cause of serious complaint.
The government of the United States, relying on the friendship which
has so long existed between the two countries, had the right to
expect that the government of Venezuela would long since have taken
that prompt and decisive action in the investigation and adjustment
of this affair which its importance demanded. But having failed to
do so, the undersign Led regards it as his imperative duty to
present the instructions to his government given to his predecessor,
Mr. E. D. Cuiver, namely: “That the United States deem it right to
ask that the offenders be brought to trial, and that prompt
provision be made to indemnify the widows or representatives of the
sufferers.”
The undersigned will be happy to be informed that such will be the
course of the government of Venezuela, and begs also to say to your
excellency that he is ready, at all times, to receive in the
legation of the United States such indemnification as may be agreed
upon between the government of Venezuela and the undersigned.
The undersigned renews to the honorable Mr. Seijas the assurance of
his distinguished consideration.
The Honorable Rafael Seijas, Minister of
Foreign Relations
[Page 801]
Mr. Wilson to Mr. Seijas
Legation of the United
States, Caracas,
January 25, 1867.
Sir: The undersigned, minister resident of
the United States, would respectfully remind Mr. Seijas that the
communications of the undersigned of the 5th of November, 1866, and
also of the 28th of December, 1866, in regard to the killing of
Captain J. W. Hammer and J. de Brissot, and the wounding of Joseph
Stackpole, citizens of the United States, the demnification of the
widows and representatives of the sufferers, and the arrest and
trial of the alleged guilty arties, remain unanswered.
The undersigned would now respectfully ask that this unprovoked, as
well as unfortunate affair, be seriously considered by Mr. Seijas
and the government of Venezuela.
The undersigned again informs Mr. Seijas that he is ready to receive
in the legation of the United States such indemnification as may be
agreed upon between the government of Venezuela and the
undersigned.
The undersigned renews to Mr. Seijas the assurance of his
distinguished consideration.
His Excellency Rafael Seijas, Minister of
Foreign Relations.
UNITED STATES OF VENEZUELA, MINISTRY
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, CENTRAL SECTION—NO. 84.
Mr. Seijas to Mr. Wilson
Caracas, January 26, 1867,
4th year of the Law and 9th of the Independence.
The undersigned, in charge of the ministry of foreign affairs of the
United States of Venezuela, has the honor to reply to the despatches
of the minister resident of the United States of America, in which
he asks the government what steps have been taken for the arrest and
trial of the parties implicated in the murder of Captain J. W.
Hammer and Julius de Brissot, and wounds of Joseph Stackpole, and
for the indemnification of the widows and representatives of the
victims.
Since the first time the legation spoke of this affair it was
answered under the date of the 25th November, 1865, that different
reports were given of it, which, nevertheless, all presented it as a
deed that had taken place in a combat between the forces commanded
by the president of Apure, and others, that had rebelled against his
authority. Information afterwards received confirmed the government
in this opinion, so much so that when the widow of Mr. Hammer
presented herself to the government, claiming an indemnification for
the death of her husband, her petition was point-blank refused,
declining the responsibility which she pretended to bring on the
nation. The deed was declared totally foreign to its administrative
organs and to the sphere of its political action.
In the different communications of the minister and of his
predecessor, we have in vain sought for the basis or foundation they
might have to qualify the death of those individuals as murder, and
to claim indemnification in favor of its representatives. The
undersigned has again perused them and has there found nothing but
“that the citizens killed were pursuing a legitimate business under
the flag of their country in Venezuelan waters and under the
protection of its authorities;” that these citizens were employed in
a legitimate occupation in the waters of Venezuela in virtue of an
invitation and promise of protection from its authorities; that they
had violated no laws, nor made any rebellion, nor committed treason
of any kind, nor was any crime imputed to them when they were fired
upon by an armed body of rebel forces, commanded by rebel chiefs,
and their lives sacrificed.
The steamer Apure navigated in the Orinoco, one of the rivers of
Venezuela, and in the Apure, another of them, in virtue of the
privilege granted by the legislative decree of the 2d of May, 1849,
for the term of 18 years. The vessels of the enterprise were to be
national and sail under the Venezuelan flag, though they were
allowed, on account of the privilege, to be foreign property and
their crews to be composed of foreigners. Among the favors granted
to the enterprise is the right of cutting and of using freely, in
the laylands belonging to the government, both the wood and timber
necessary for fuel and for the building and repairing of the vessels
employed, the exemption of all municipal bay and port charges for a
lapse of 18 years, and the exemption also of import duties as
regards the steamers and their corresponding apparel. In exchange,
the rates both of passage and freight were fixed or established. It
was the duty of the proprietors to take the mail bags gratis, and
also the officers or agents sent on commission by the government. It
was also their duty to take both the officers and troops and any
cargo belonging to them at a reasonable rate of passage
[Page 802]
and freight, which should
be previously agreed upon with the competent authorities. The law
insured to the persons and things belonging to the enterprise, on
the part of the authorities of the republic, the protection due to
Venezuelans, in conformity with article 218 of the constitution.
Finally it was established that the questions of any nature to which
the establishment of the steamers might give origin should be
decided or settled by the authorities or magistrates of Venezuela,
and in conformity with its laws, without ever being made a matter of
international claim. The enterprise, or better said the proprietors
of it, by the fact of accepting the privilege and its condition,
remained submitted to them.
The steamer Apure arrived at San Fernando in October, 1865. General
Juan Baptist Garcia, the President of the state, engaged with the
captain passage for himself, several officers, and for 50 soldiers,
for the sum of 350 pesos, ($350.) According to the protest of the
employés of the steamer, when it reached Apurito it was fastened to
the shore, for the purpose of passing there the night, and landing
the cargo destined for that port. No merchant having made his
appearance, Captain Hammer called out with the trumpet of the
vessel. Mr. Edward Calderon was the only one to appear, and he
informed of the presence of the enemy in the square, (plaza.) The
enemy prevented the boat from being loosened. General Garcia sent
them a guerrilla on shore, and great firing
commenced against the steamer. A combat ensued, and in this
situation Captain Hammer landed, and had the misfortune to fall
lifeless, struck by a bullet. During the fight Mr. de Brissot was
also killed, who seems to have been wounded before. From all this it
results that these painful deaths were due to a fortuitous case, to which the captain by his own will
exposed himself, and also to his imprudent landing in the midst of
the firing of the combatants. There was an insurrection in the state
of Apure against the authority of General Garcia. No intention could
there have been to kill determinately this or that individual, much
less foreigners, who could not be supposed to share in these local
dissensions. The fighters being so many, it is impossible to point
out the killers of the Americans. Venezuelans perished also on the
same occasion. The neutral that renders services to one of the
belligerents, and in consequence of it receives harm, or is harmed,
can impute it to nobody, especially if pay was stipulated.
Foreigners that by their own will find themselves in a country in
times of revolution, or of war, have to suffer the same fate of the
natives by the mere fact of their having placed themselves among
them. Though the bombs of the enemy burn their property or deprive
them of their lives, they are bound to submit patiently to these, as
well as if nature itself had caused them. We believe that the United
States of America have refused to indemnify the damages caused by
military operations in the four years’ rebellion, and even by acts
of its own authorities. We also believe that they have not been
liable for any deed of the rebels.
Besides, and even supposing that murder had been committed, there
would be no better ground for demand of indemnification. According
to the general and particular principles adopted in the privilege
decree, the Americans employed in the navigation had no right to
greater protection than the natives. Mr. Webster sustained the same
doctrine, speaking of all foreigners in contraposition with the
natives, when he reported on the case of Mr. Thresher before one of
the legislative chambers.
Now, then, the laws of the republic grant no indemnification with its
funds for the deaths of citizens who have perished victims of a
crime. Why, then, should citizens belonging to other countries and
citizens as have been stated so identified with the natives be
entitled to it?
On the 25th of April, 1866, and with the object of putting an end to
all the claims which had been presented against Venezuela, a
convention was entered into with the legation of the United States.
Whether the claims be of a corporation, of a company, or of private
individuals, they are to be examined and decided by a mixed
commission composed of two individuals, one selected by each
government. Its decisions will settle definitively and irrevokably
all claims pending on the day of its first session, and those that
are not presented within twelve months since the first sitting of
the commission are proscribed.
That convention, approved by the Senate and ratified by the President
of the United States, needs only the approbation of the national
legislature of Venezuela. It is for this reason that the course of
these claims has been stopped, since none of them were excluded from
the application of its clauses. The government infers from this,
that should you, in the present case, insist in the demand of an
indemnification, it would be necessary to occur to the said means to
have the justice of the case decided. There is no reason to deviate
from what has been agreed upon and proposed by the United States
itself.
Finally, I inform the legation that the government decided that a sum
of money, which as yet has been impossible to pay, should be
delivered to the widow of Mr. Hammer, not as a matter of obligation,
but of favor; not as a debt of justice, but as an act of generosity,
denying in this very act all right to any indemnification.
The undersigned renews to Mr. Wilson the assurances of his
distinguished consideration. God and federation!
[Page 803]
Mr. Wilson to Mr. Seijas
Legation of the United
States, Caracas,
February 25, 1867.
Sir: The undersigned, minister resident of
the United States, has the honor to acknowledgethe receipt of the
despatch of Mr. Seijas of the date of January 26, 1867, replying to
thenotes of the undersigned of the dates of November 5, December 28,
1866, and January 25,1867, inquiring what steps had been taken by
the government of Venezuela for the arrestand trial of certain
parties implicated in the killing of Captain John W. Hammer and
Juliusde Brissot, and the wounding of Joseph Stackpole, American
citizens, and also for theindemnification of the widows and legal
representatives of the sufferers.
The undersigned is now informed, by the despatch of Mr. Seijas, that
from the first thegovernment of Venezuela has held the opinion that
the deaths and wounding of these American citizens were the result
of a combat between the forces of General Garcia, President ofthe
state of Apure, and others who had rebelled against his authority,
and that it was a deedtotally foreign to its administrative organs
and without the sphere of its political action.
In thus presenting the views of his government, it seems to have
wholly escaped theattention of Mr. Seijas that his excellency,
President Falcon, had held and expressed entirelydifferent views. In
his address to the people of Venezuela, dated on the 10th day of
August,1866, at his headquarters in the city of Barquisimeto, the
President said:
“Afterwards, by a declaration of the constituent assembly, Apure was
ranked among thecomponent states of the Union, recovering its
independence, and the authorities of Zamorahave been constantly
watching for an opportunity to invade the neighboring
territory—always coveted by them, but always opposed by Apure—to the
idea of annexation Finally,having lost all hope of a pacific
submission, the commander, General Pedro Manuel Rojas,President of
Zamora, appealed to arms to obtain by force what could not be
obtained by thefree will of the people, and consequently Apure was
twice invaded during the year of 1865.In one of these invasions a
painful incident occurred, which might have brought
internationalcomplications to the country, had not a conflict been
avoided by the prudence and equity ofthe national government united
to the benevolent feelings of the United States towards
Venezuela.”
If no responsibility is attached to the government, why should the
President make use ofsuch language? Why the necessity to speak a
word in the matter? Or why make itsoccurrence the cause of grave
charges against General Rojas, at that time President of thestate of
Zamora.
It is evident that the President of the republic regarded this affair
as very serious andpainful, and it is not only to be regretted that
his views have not been shared by those moreimmediately charged with
the control of the government, but that the very prudence andequity
of the national government, which, it is alleged by the President,
avoided this international difficulty, is now simply designated as a
mere favor, conceded, without right—indeed, a gratuity—and one which
the government has never been able to pay
The undersigned submits the following as the facts in the case:
Captain John W. Hammer, Julius de Brissot, and Joseph Stackpole, in
the discharge ofof their respective duties as officers of the
American steamer Apure, sailing under the Venezuelan flag, arrived
with the steamer at the city of San Fernando, the capital of the
state ofApure, of which General Juan Baptista Garcia was the
president. On the arrival of thesteamer, General Garcia demanded
passage for himself, his officers, and a number of troopsfor the
waters of the upper Apure. Captain Hammer having heard in Ciudad
Bolivar ofthe threatened invasion of the state of Apure, refused the
transportation demanded by GeneralGarcia, and continued his refusal
for the period of two days. Afterwards, during hisabsence in the
city of San Fernando, and without his knowledge and over his
protest, theofficers and troops were placed on board of the steamer.
Returning Captain Hammer againprotested, but was thereupon informed
by General Garcia that the steamer would not bepermitted to proceed
to its destination unless the general, his officers, and troops were
alsotaken. Under these circumstances, and with the further
understanding and declarationmade by General Garcia that the
expedition was simply one of observation, and not hostilein its
character, and that the general, his officers and troops would leave
the steamer at thevillage of Apurito, the steamer proceeded.
The Apure arrived at Apurito at about 7 o’clock on the night of the
18th October, 1865,and was made fast with two ropes and a chain,
attached in two places on the shore and tothe prow of the steamer,
and, as customary, planks were run out from the steamer to theshore
for the purpose of discharging Cago and passengers destined for that
port. At thistime information was given that a body of hostile
troops were in the square, (plaza.) Captain Hammer requested General
Garcia at once either to take his troops on shore or placethem in
the boats belonging to General Garcia, and brought by him from San
Fernando,attached to the stern of the steamer. Some few of the
troops were ordered ashore, but beingfired upon, they immediately
ran back to the steamer. General firing from land then beganagainst
the steamer, the land troops having the advantage, being in perfect
darkness and ina position to attack the steamer, it being lighted in
the prow, centre, and stern. During
[Page 804]
all this time the officers and crew were
endeavoring to unloose the steamer from shore and urging the
soldiers to land. While so doing de Brissot was wounded by a shot
from shore. In the mean time Captain Hammer communicated to the
troops on shore, who were commanded by Generals Sosa and Santos
Mendez, that he had passengers on board and not to fire. The firing
having ceased for a moment, the passengers begged Captain Hammer, as
he was acquainted with Sosa and Mendez, to go ashore and try to save
them from being killed. The request of the passengers having been
reported by Captain Hammer, permission was given him to land.
Captain Hammer at once, the firing having altogether ceased,
started, and at the moment he was stepping ashore, in company with
an officer sent by Sosa and Mendez to meet him, fell, instantly
killed by a shot in his back, fired from the steamer. Thereupon the
firing again opened from shore. De Brissot, wounded, earnestly
insisted that General Garcia, with his officers and troops, should
leave the steamer or all would be killed; and while remonstrating
was struck dead by a bullet fired from shore.
It is believed that all these facts could have been established as
stated, if not more fully, had the government of Venezuela ordered
the arrest and trial of the parties implicated in the murders; and
if any difficulty or misunderstanding now exists in regard to the
facts, it is properly the fault of the government in neglecting to
order a full investigation of the whole affair.
It is now contended by Mr. Seijas that these deaths were the result
of an unforeseen accident, (casa fortuito,)
to which Captain Hammer in particular, by his own will, exposed
himself, and also to his imprudent conduct in landing in the midst
of the firing of the combatants. This view cannot be admitted by the
undersigned. How could the combat at Apurito be said to be
unforeseen? General Garcia was aware, at San Fernando, of the
invasion of the state. When he placed his troops on board the
steamer he knew of the hostile intentions of Rojas and of his chiefs
and sympathizers, Sosa and Mendez. When the steamer arrived at,
Apurito General Garcia was duly informed of the presence of the
invader, How can that, then, be called unforeseen which is the
direct result of the act of General Garcia in placing the victims in
the way of their death? Had not General Garcia gone with his troops
to Apurito, or had the troops been immediately landed on their
arrival, it is reasonable to conclude that no injury would have
happened either to Hammer or De Brissot. This is demonstrated by the
subsequent conduct of the troops of Sosa and Mendez in regard to the
steamer and her crew, after the departure of General Garcia and his
troops, on the succeeding day. Consequently that which happened at
Apurito was the fault of Garcia, and was not only foreseen by him,
but actually sought for, instead of being avoided.
But it may be here urged that it was the duty of General Garcia to
expel from the limits of his state armed invaders. This may be so,
but still that duty did not give him the right to expose others in
nowise interested, either by nationality or citizenship, in the
disputes between the several states, to the chances and calamities
of war, or, if he did so, to claim exemption either for him or the
government whose organ he was, from the responsibility resulting
from his acts.
Nor can it be admitted that this affair is foreign to the present
federal government, or without the sphere of its political action,
for whether the painful incident was caused by General Rojas through
his officers, as charged by the President, or by General Garcia, in
either case it was the act of one or the other of the administration
organs of the general government, and it is, therefore, answerable
in this matter to the just demands of the United States. But Mr.
Seijas says that the deaths were but a mere accident, caused by the
will and imprudence of Captain Hammer in landing in the midst of the
firing of the opposed parties. What was the duty of Captain Hammer?
To him were confided the lives of the crew and passengers and the
safety of the steamer and her cargo. To his employers he was
responsible for a faithful discharge of his duty. Imperilled as all
were by the attack, unable to extricate the steamer from shore, and
in constant dread of an explosion, what could Captain Hammer do but
try to save all intrusted to his care. His duty was the more urgent
on account of the disorder in the troops of Garcia, the
improbability of their landing, and the conversion of the steamer
into a battle-field. It was worse than useless to look longer to
Garcia or his troops for safety. The only alternative left was an
interview with the parties on shore, in the hope they could be
induced to cease the attack on the steamer. With this object in view
Captain Hammer landed, not, as Mr. Seijas says. in the midst of the
firing of the combatants, but when, as the undersigned is informed,
the firing had wholly ceased, for the purpose of the interview, and
was killed, not by the shots of the enemy, but by a single shot,
fired from the steamer, and, as believed, and publicly asserted in
Ciudad Bolivar, by the hands of Garcia himself, or by his
orders.
The death of Captain John W. Hammer, then, was not the result of a
mere accident, occasioned by his own will and imprudent conduct, but
of deliberate and wilful intention to commit murder. Julius de
Brissot, on the other hand, came to his death from shots fired by
the invading troops under the command of Sosa and Mendez, first
wounding, and afterwards, by a second bullet, killing him, while in
the discharge of his duties as an officer of the steamer. Neither
can it be said that the victims willingly rendered service to either
one or the other of the contending parties, for whether Captain
Hammer received a stipulated sum for the transportation of the
troops or not is immaterial, in view of the imposition practiced
upon him by General Garcia, in this, that the expedition was simply
one of observation
[Page 805]
within
the limits of his State of Apure, and not of a hostile character, or
of the actualdetention of the steamer by his superior power, until
himself, his officers and troops, wereembarked In either event there
was force in the first instance, by imposition; in the last,actual.
Neither did Captain Hammer find himself with his steamer and crew at
Apurito byhis own will. In fact, he had no will in the matter. He
was there, as has been said, byforce, either actual or by
imposition, or both combined, and the loss of his life and thelife
of de Brissot, with the wounding of Stackpole, are all the
legitimate result of the conduct, acts, and representations of
General Garcia, originally, at San Fernando. It is, therefore, not
necessary to consider at any great length the views urged by Mr.
Seijas in regardto foreigners who find themselves willingly in an
enemy’s territory, and who thereby, asasserted by Mr Seijas, subject
themselves the same as native citizens to all the casualtieswhich
may occur during a state of revolution or other commotions. It is
believed, however, that such views are not correct. Foreign
governments have nothing to do with theconduct of any other
government towards its own subjects. That is not their concern.
Their duty is to carefully guard the lives and property of their own
citizens, demandingproper satisfaction or indemnification if the
magistrates or officials of the government withinwhose jurisdiction
they may be, disregard their duties towards such citizens, or cause
themto be treated unjustly. Venezuela has again and again acted on
this principle in grantingindemnities to foreigners, in large
amounts, for losses sustained by them during her late civilwar.
But it is also urged by Mr. Seijas that even if murder had been
committed, there wouldstill be no better ground for the demand for
indemnification, because, according to the general and to the
particular principle adopted in the privileged decree, the Americans
employedin the navigation had no right to greater protection than
native citizens, and that no indemnification has been granted for
the deaths of Venezuelans who perished on this occasion. There is,
therefore, no reason why a distinction should be made in favor of
the representatives of the American sufferers
The opinion of Mr. Webster in the case of Mr. Thresher is produced to
sustain thisposition.
It is considered that the doctrines set forth in that case have been
misapprehended by Mr. Seijas; at all events, a closer examination of
the case will, it is presumed, satisfy him thattheir application
will not relieve the Venezuelan government in this affair.
Mr. John S Thresher, a native-born citizen of the United States,
removed to Havana, inthe island of Cuba, where he resided for a
number of years, engaged in business of variouskinds. Besides, he
not only became domiciled, but also, in the most solemn form,
sworeallegiance to the Spanish Crown.
After the invasion of Lopez and the failure of the expedition Mr.
Thresher was arrestedand tried for high treason, found guilty and
condemned to eight years’ imprisonment at hardlabor.
His friends made application to the government of the United States
in his behalf. Afterfull consideration of the facts in thecase, the
government held that it was “bound to recognize the obligations of
foreign nationality, voluntarily assumed by one who had been
anative-born citizen, and not interpose in his behalf the claims of
American citizenship toprotect him against the consequences of acts
committed against the country of his adoption.”
Mr. Thresher had, of his own choice, abandoned his native country. He
had madeanother election and had assumed new obligations.
Undoubtedly, then neither he nor hisfriends had the right to claim
other or higher protection and privileges than those enjoyedby
Spanish subjects in Cuba.
But it cannot be conceded, that an American citizen who may happen to
be in Venezuela,or any other foreign government, is, by that fact,
entitled to no other or higher protectionthan that which may be
accorded by such government to its own citizens. On the contrary,it
is insisted that he is entitled, not only to protection of the
government where he may betemporarily, but in the cases of denial of
justice, outrages to person, or the violent takingof life, also to
the superadded protection of his own government and its
interposition in hisbehalf or in behalf of his representatives. Mr.
Seijas need hardly be reminded Venezuelahas so recognized, in the
law of Espera, the indemnification of Mr. Ward, an English subject,
on account of his imprisonment, and other similar cases. But there
is no similaritybetween the case of Mr. Thresher and the present
Captain Hammer, who was, and remaineduntil the day of his death, a
citizen of the United States. Nor did he ever, by any act,attempt to
change his condition. It is true that he resided within the limits
of the republicof Venezuela, but it was for a certain and specified
time, under a certain and specifiedemployment with the Orinoco Steam
Navigation Company. The privileged decree of thecompany expired in
1867.
Had Captain Hammer lived until that period his contract with the
company, and, consequently, his connection with Venezuela, would
have terminated.
But it is not alleged by Mr. Seijas that he ever became a Venezuelan.
At most, therefore,he owed but a local and temporary allegiance, and
that he strictly discharged. Living,then, Captain Hammer would have
been entitled to the protection of his own government;and if,
without the violation of any municipal law, he should have been
treated unjustly,he would have a right to claim that protection, and
the interposition of the American government in his favor would be
considered as justifiable interposition.
[Page 806]
Are the claims of his widow and children and the widow and children
of de Brissot weakened by their sudden and violent deaths? The
undersigned cannot think so, and does, therefore, regard the
interposition of the government of the United States as not only a
right which they can justly claim, but as a duty, dictated by every
principle of justice and humanity.
It is not considered that the 12th article of the decree of May 2,
1849, granting exclusive privilege to Turpin and Beelin to navigate
by steam the rivers Orinoco and Apure, has any bearing in the
present case; for though it says that the questions of any nature
arising from the establishment of the line are to be decided by the
authorities of Venezuela, and in accordance with its laws, without
ever being made matter of an international claim, it must be
supposed that this refers to questions simply of business
transactions and nothing else, for it cannot be presumed that, in
consequence of that section, the government of the United States
would allow its citizens to be outraged and murdered with impunity.
Certainly not.
Finally, the undersigned is informed that the commission to be
organized under the convention, entered into between the legation of
the United States and the government of Venezuela, on the 25th of
April, 866, is the proper tribunal to decide the questions involved
in this affair.
It is with some surprise that this information is received; for, in
the first place, although the convention has been approved by the
Senate, and ratified by the President of the United States, it has
yet, after great delay, failed to receive the sanction of the
national legislature of Venezuela. Besides, it never may be
sanctioned. But, in the second place, supposing that the convention
is approved, ratified and exchanged, what jurisdiction would the
commission have of the parties implicated in the murders? What power
to arrest, try, or punish them? None whatever. As, then, the
commission could have only partial control of the subject, and as
the necessity for present relief of the suffering families of the
victims is urgent, immediate action by the government of Venezuela
is deemed by the undersigned of the utmost importance.
The undersigned, therefore, regards it as his duty to demand, and
hereby does demand, the arrest and trial, without delay, of Juan
Baptiste Garcia, Juan Santos Mendez, and Julian Sosa, implicated in
the murders of John W. Hammer and Julius de Brissot, and the
wounding of Joseph Stackpole, American citizens, and their
punishment, if found guilty by a competent tribunal; and also the
payment of the sum of $100,000 (American) into the legation of the
United States in Caracas, as indemnification to Joseph Stackpole and
the widows and legal representatives of the victims.
The undersigned renews to Mr. Seijas the assurances of his
distinguished consideration.
Extract from the address of marshal President to
the people of Venezuela.
[Translation.]
* * * * * * *
“Afterwards, by a declaration of the constitutional assembly, Apure
was ranked among the component States of the Union, recovering its
independence, and the authorities of Zamora have been constantly
watching for an opportunity to invade the neighboring territory,
always coveted by them, but always opposed by Apure to the idea of
annexation. Finally, having lost all hope of a pacific submission,
the demander (General Pedro Manuel Rojas, President of Zamora)
appealed to arms to obtain by force what could not be obtained by
the free will of the people, and consequently Apure was twice
invaded during the year 1865.
“In one of these invasions a painful incident might
have brought international complications to the country, had not
a conflict been avoided by the prudence and equity of the
national government, united to the benevolent feelings of the
United States towards Venezuela.”
[Translation.]
United States of Venezuela–Treasury Department.
Caracas,
January 27, 1866.
Order of payment: Pesos, $25,000; number of the order, 194; number of
the record, 7. Citizen treasurer of the nation in Ciudad Bolivar,
pay to the citizen General Josés Loreto Aris-menditbe sum of
“twenty-five thousand pesos,” wherewith to comply with the
requisition of the government, according to its resolution of this
date, being obliged to make the payment from the ten per centum of
diplomatic conventions and debiting contingent expenses.
God and federation!
[Page 807]
Mr. Culver to Mr. Rodriguez
Legation of the United
States, Caracas,
April 11, 1866.
Sir: It becomes the duty of the undersigned
minister resident of the United States toinform the government of
Venezuela that on the 25th day of January last he communicatedto his
government copies of all the correspondence between this legation
and the minister offoreign relations touching the murder of Captain
J. W. Hammer and others, citizens of theUnited States, at Apurito in
October last; also, a statement of the evidence taken before
thejudge of the first instance at Ciudad, Bolivar; also, a statement
of the facts therein related asfound by consular body of that city,
together with the fact that nothing had been done byor heard from
the government touching the same to the knowledge of this legation,
exceptas indicated in the note of the foreign minister of date 25th
November last.
The undersigned, in reply to his communication, has been directed by
his government toinform the government of Venezuela that he is
instructed to say that the United States deemit right to ask that
the offenders be brought to trial, and that prompt provision be made
toindemnify the widows or representatives of the sufferers.
The undersigned is further instructed to express regret of the United
States at the delayand apparent inattention of the government of
Venezuela; all of which the undersignedhas the honor to make known,
and to add not only his own regret, but his utter surprise thathis
note of the 20th January last remains to the present moment without
a reply.
The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. Rodriguez the assurance
of his distinguished consideration.
Hon. C. Rodriguez, Acting Minister of
Foreign Relations, &c., &c.
