Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 9, 1891
Mr. Pacheco to Mr. Blaine.
Guatemala, August 26, 1891. (Received September 11.)
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith translation of communications received from the minister of foreign relations of Salvador, bearing date respectively August 9 and 14, also copy of my response to the same.
These communications from the minister reached me through the hands of Col. Victor M. Sandoval, who was special bearer of dispatches from that Government.
The wires between this Republic and Salvador have been interrupted for nearly three weeks, and am daily awaiting to hear of the late occurrences relating to the City of Panama (as they are pleased to call it), and will keep you advised of any new development.
I have, etc.,
Señor Galindo to Mr. Pacheco.
San Salvador, August 9, 1891.
Mr. Minister: This morning at 9 o’clock I wrote to your excellency with reference to the incident which occurred with the steamship City of Panama, of the merchant navy of the United States of America.
It is now 4 in the afternoon. The captain of the steamer mentioned, anchored in the waters of La Libertad, has refused to receive on board the second in command of the captaincy of that port, who went by order of the minister of marine to navigate in the steamer till further orders to prove her occupation (or her having been taken possession of) in the name of the Republic by virtue of the sentence of confiscation pronounced (fulminated) by the captain of the port of La Union.
This sentence was notified to the agent of the Pacific Mail in this port, and up to this moment I have received no advice of any appeal having been interposed.
[Page 77]According to the latest telegrams, the City of Panama is now on the point of leaving for Acajutla.
My Government, convinced of its right, has commanded the governor of the department of Sonsonate to go to Acajutla accompanied by a body of police and there take from on the City of Panama the offender Lisandro Letona, avoiding as much as possible the use of arms.
If, as is to be expected, the capture takes place, the Salvadorian Government will have had another occasion to prove before the world that if it is firm in the maintenance of its rights it is civilized (enough) to respect the lives, dignity, and rights of offenders coming under the jurisdiction of its judges and the protection of its laws.
I am, etc.,
Señor Galindo to Mr. Pacheco.
San Salvador, August 14, 1891.
Mr. Minister: Herewith you will find a copy of No. 186, vol. 31, of the Diario Oficial of this Republic, wherein all the late occurrences relating to the City of Panama are narrated.
I have only to add that the United States consul in this capital has instituted a careful inquiry into all that has happened in the port of La Libertad, and that yesterday he had the amiability to declare to me that he is much satisfied with the measured and prudent conduct of my Government in the incident occasioned by the captain of the aforementioned steamer, and that he recognized (acknowledged) that all the acts of the Salvadorian authorities were based on the laws in force.
In the afternoon I received a cablegram from the Department of State in Washington indicating that your excellency had orders to protest energetically against all arbitrary proceedings against the City of Panama on the part of the Salvadorian Government.
Your excellency’s silence authorizes me to think that he has found nothing in the conduct of my Government that could serve as a basis for the protest.
I am much pleased at this, for it is the desire (purpose) of the Salvadorian Government to take advantage of all circumstances (opportunities), even adverse ones, of proving its friendly disposition toward the Government and the United States of America.
I am, etc.,
Mr. Pacheco to Señor Galindo.
Guatemala, August 22, 1891.
Mr. Minister: Through the kindness of Lieut. Col. Don Victor Manuel Sandoval, now a guest at the legation, I had the honor of receiving your excellency’s communications, dated, respectively, 9th and 14th, and copy of letter addressed to the American consul on the 8th instant.
I have carefully noted contents, and in answer permit me to state that it appears from Capt. F. P. White’s report that the Pacific Mail steamship City of Panama arrived on time at the port of La Union on the evening of the 6th instant, and on the morning of the 7th commenced the work of loading and unloading cargo without interruption. At 5 p.m. of the same day the commandant of the port, accompanied by six officials, and a launch containing an officer and 12 men, all heavily armed, visited the ship and informed the captain that he had an order of the Salvadorian Government for the arrest of Gen. Letona, who had been declared a political criminal.
He then made formal demand for his surrender and custody. The captain’s answer was to the effect that he did not recognize the order to be legal, and therefore refused to comply with this demand of the commandant; that Gen. Letona was a passenger on his ship who embarked at Corinto, Nicaragua, for San José de Guatemala; and, that he (the captain) did not know anything concerning political offenders.
[Page 78]The commandant then stated, in a very clear and determined manner, that he would not dispatch the vessel, whereupon at 8:10 p.m., after being in port over twenty-four hours, the steamer left without her regular clearance. On her arrival at La Libertad, on the 8th instant, the captain was notified through an official from shore that by sentence dictated at La Union the captain of the port had declared the steamship City of Panama confiscated for having left without the necessary license, and also that he was designated by his Government to take command of the ship.
This officer was politely requested to return on shore. Having delayed over twenty-four hours, the steamer then left for San José de Guatemala.
Freely reviewing the facts in this case, Mr. Minister, as per report of Capt. White and his officers, it is now proper for me to say that in acting as he did the captain strictly remained within the requirements under the terms of contract between your excellency’s Government and the Pacific Mail Company. The demand of the commandant at La Union for the surrender of Gen. Letona was made on telegraphic order merely, no warrant of arrest or legal power to take the accused into custody having been exhibited or presented to the captain.
With regard to the departure of the City of Panama without regular clearance, I beg to draw your excellency’s attention to the fact that the steamer remained in each port the regular limit of time according to her contract, and that the captain could not further postpone the departure of his vessel without being wanting in his duty towards his employers. In view of the captain’s refusal to surrender the person named, the commandant had it in his power to protest in the manner best suited to the country’s dignity and his own, under the assurance that any illegal proceeding on the part of the company’s officers would meet with due attention and reprehension; but he had no legal right to refuse to clear the ship, thereby placing the captain in the extreme necessity of departing without the regular formalities.
I can recall several comparatively recent instances of the arrest of alleged offenders on American vessels in Spanish American ports. In these cases the consular or diplomatic officer has invariably been applied to for his consent, and proof has been furnished in authentic legal form of the crime alleged. Where there has been ground for the suspicion that the application bore a political complexion, ample proof has been adduced that the offenses charged were ordinary in their character. This fact has been made the basis of the request for the consent of the foreign representatives to the arrest, and I am not informed of any case in which the arrest has been made where the representative of the United States withheld his consent or the demand wore a political aspect. Ample evidence can be shown that in respect to political offenders a very considerable and important exception has in practice been made in Spanish American countries to the general rule as to the exercise of jurisdiction over foreign vessels.
The same exception is also found to exist in the case of asylum in foreign legations. It is a general principle that an ambassador or other public minister is not permitted to grant an asylum to offenders in the country in which his legation is established. But an exception to the rule has been made in respect to political offenders, and nowhere has it more generally prevailed than in these countries of Spanish America. It is proper to say that the Government of the United States has never encouraged an extension of this exception, for the reason that it is likely to lead to abuse. But at the same time it has on grounds of humanity frequently found itself obliged to maintain it. That it has done so with regret is due not more to its indisposition to exercise exceptional privileges than to the deplorable fact of the recurrent disorders which have so often caused those in power suddenly to seek a place of refuge from the pursuit of others who have been able to drive them from their positions. It is to this unfortunate and unsettled political condition that the extension of asylum to political offenders is attributable, and it is believed that the considerations of self-interest arising from a sense of insecurity have not infrequently permitted the exercise of the privilege to pass without strenuous objection. Under these circumstances especially, no nation could acquiesce in the sudden disregard or heed a demand for the peremptory abandonment of a privilege sanctioned by so general usage. The causes that have operated to foster the maintenance of an asylum for political offenders in legations have contributed perhaps even more powerfully to secure a place of refuge for them on foreign vessels. The principal means of communication between the countries of Spanish America is by water, and it has been a matter of common interest to permit such communication to be undisturbed by political events. These considerations peculiarly apply to the vessels of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, which for many years have been the principal vehicles of transportation, especially for passengers between several of these countries. Plying between San Francisco and Panama as terminal points, they call at various Central American ports, halting as long as may be necessary to unship and ship cargo, and lying at anchor for that purpose some distance from the shore. While it is true that, being in the-ports of the country, the mere circumstance that they are not fastened I to a wharf or brought close, inshore does not exempt them from the local jurisdiction, [Page 79] yet it is proper to be taken into account, as an explanation of the fact in these countries, that considerations of convenience and interest have ever been most actual and important. It is not doubted that in the many years during which the vessels of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company have plied between San Francisco and Panama they have carried scores and hundreds of persons who have been concerned in political broils and insurrectionary movements in the countries at whose ports they call, yet I am informed of but a single instance in which the peace of the vessel has been disturbed by the seizure of a person onboard for any political cause. So far as I am able to ascertain, it is the common opinion that such a right of seizure is not asserted or supposed to exist. This is the common opinion, of which Chief Justice Marshall spoke as evidence of that common usage which determines the law.
No better evidence of that opinion could be adduced than the instance which has been disclosed of political fugitives who have gone onboard of these vessels, knowing that they would call at points in which their lives might be sacrificed if they went on shore.
I will now, with your kind permission, Mr. Minister, allude to the unfortunate performance of confiscation of the steamship City of Panama. I can not but feel and express my regrets at the course taken by the authorities at La Union, and can find no warrant, or excuse even, for the arbitrary proceeding of the commandant of that port. The foregoing exposition of the generally accepted views with regard to the right of asylum, which are also those recognized by my Government, will, I doubt not, induce your excellency’s Government to reconsider by a terminant disapproval of the proceedings of the captain of the port at La Union, restoring the mutual relations of sincere friendship and good will that for a moment might have been disturbed by this untoward occurrence.
I am sure your excellency’s Government must be aware that it is the sincere desire and wish of the American people to adjust all differences, should any arise between it and the sister republics, in a most liberal and friendly spirit. Likewise, it may not be superfluous to indicate that my Government is not prepared to sacrifice any of the recognized principles of international law and justice, of which the right of asylum for political offenders on board of merchant vessels flying the American flag is a most important one.
I am, etc.,