No. 646.
Mr. Reed
to Mr. Blaine.
Legation of
the United States.
Madrid
April 7, 1881. (Received April 23.)
No. 61.]
Sir: Referring to Mr. Evarts’ instruction No. 111,
I have now the honor to inclose herewith, for your information, a copy of my
note of the 26th ultimo to the minister of state, on the question of
jurisdictional limits, and of a copy and translation of his reply thereto,
dated the 4th instant.
The minister of state confines himself to the question of jurisdictional
limits in time of peace, or, in other words, to the jurisdictional limits
established by Spain, within which Spanish guarda
costas may detain and search merchant vessels with a view to the
prevention of smuggling, claiming, as did his predecessor, that inasmuch as
peace had been restored in Cuba at the time of the detention of the American
vessels Ethel A. Merritt, Eunice P. Newcomb, George Washington, and Hattie
Haskell, the question must necessarily be governed by those limits. Those
limits are, as will be seen by his excellency’s note, six miles from the
coast.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 61.]
Mr. Reed to the
Marques de la Vega de
Armijo.
On the 24th January last your excellency’s worthy predecessor addressed a
note to this legation giving the resorts of the investigation ordered by
His Catholic Majesty’s Government of the circumstances under which the
American vessels Ethel A. Merritt, Eunice P. Newcomb, George Washington,
and Hattie Haskell were fired upon and visited by Spanish gunboats off
the coast of Cuba, in the months of May, June, and July, 1880.
A copy of the above note was sent to Washington for the information of
the Government of the United States, and as it seemed to contradict all
of the material allegations of the masters and officers of the several
vessels, as to the distance of said vessels from the Cuban coast at the
time of the firing on and visitation by the Spanish officials, the
Department of State addressed each one of the representatives of the
vessels in question, contrasting their statements (which had been
accepted by the Department of State after the most searching methods had
been adopted to arrive at the truth of the facts according to the rules
of evidence in such cases) with the statements presented in behalf of
His Catholic Majesty’s Government, and asking them if they had any
corroborative evidence to offer as to the exactness of their former
affirmations, and also what they had to say in regard to the allegations
that the vessels were out of their course, and so liable to
suspicion.
Meanwhile, the Government of the United States would be pleased to
receive the views of that of His Catholic Majesty in regard to the
question of jurisdictional limit. The position of the Government of the
United States on this question was fully and clearly set forth in the
instruction of the Secretary of State to this legation of the 11th
August last, a copy of which was left with his excellency Señor Elduayen
on the 13th September, and I need not now occupy the time of your
excellency with a repetition of the views therein set forth further than
to state that it still adheres to the three-mile rule as the
jurisdictional limit.
The note of Señor Elduayen of the 24th January last does not appear to
meet the question of the jurisdictional limits within which the
visitations now under discussion were effected, and the wide
contradiction between the several statements does not suffice to bring
the position of at least three of the vessels within the customary
nautical league.
While the Government of the United States fully and frankly accepts the
disclaimer of that of His Catholic Majesty, that no intention of
discourtesy was intended in the visitations referred to, it insists on
the importance of a clear understanding of the jurisdictional limit. It
also insists on the distinction, between the verification (according to
the usual procedure of revenue cruisers), within a reasonable range
[Page 1054]
of approach, of vessels
seeking Spanish ports in due pursuit of trade therewith, and the arrest
by armed force, without the jurisdictional three mile limit, of vessels
not bound to Spanish ports.
The considerations of my government on the above points, as advanced in
its instruction to this legation of the 11th August (already referred
to), do not seem to have attracted from His Catholic Majesty’s
Government the attention due to their precise bearing, and I am
therefore instructed to invite, through your excellency, an expression
of its views on the subject, and at the same time to express the hope
that such views may be furnished at as early a day as may be convenient
and practicable.
I avail, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No.
61.—Translation.]
The Marques de la Vega de
Armijo to Mr. Reed.
Ministry of
State,
Palace,
April 4, 1881.
My Dear Sir: I have read attentively your note
of 26th ultimo, in which you inform me that, having sent to the
Government of the United States the one addressed by this ministry to
the legation on the 24th January last, giving the result of the
investigation instituted by order of the superior authority of Cuba in
regard to the circumstances of the detention of the American merchant
ships Ethel A. Merritt, Eunice P. Newcomb, George Washington, and Hattie
Haskell, the Department of State had deemed it proper to transmit to the
representatives of said ships the contents of the same, in case they
might have new proof to offer, corroborating their former affirmations,
or wish to refute the charges imputed to them that their vessels were
out of their course, and so liable to suspicion.
You say further that meanwhile the Government of the United States
desires to know the views of that of His Majesty on the question of
jurisdictional limit, as closely connected with the question at
issue.
In the note of the 24th January last my predecessor in this ministry
plainly stated the official character of the service intrusted to the
gunboats Canto and Blasco de Garay when the detention of the American
ships occurred, remarking that the insurrection in the Island of Cuba
being happily terminated, the vigilance in those coasts was actually
directed to the prosecution of maritime smuggling and the enforcement of
our fiscal laws.
This statement made, it is my duty to say to you that the jurisdictional
limits within which the government of His Majesty understands itself to
have exercise, necessarily refers to those established by our special
legislation of customs and the reglamentary dispositions for the
prevention of smuggling, which covers an extension of six miles
(equivalent to 11.111 kilometers) from the coast to the high sea.
These limits were designated in 1775, repeated in 1830, and also in the
royal decree of 20th June, 1852, relative to the prevention of
smuggling, and finally in article 42 of the general customs ordinances
of July, 1870, and as there exists no treaty which conventionally
modifies these dispositions, and as no power has protested against them
in the period of so many years, the Spanish Government, apart from the
right which corresponds to Spain, in the use of its sovereignty, and in
conformity with the regulations admitted by international law to fix the
extension of its fiscal zone, deems it its duty to maintain and to cause
them to be respected.
I avail, &c.
EL MARQUES DE LA VEGA DE ARMIJO.
