Mr. Thompson to Mr.
Gresham.
Legation of
the United States,
Petropolis, December 31, 1893.
(Received February 3, 1894.)
No. 122.]
Sir: Referring to my telegram of December 21,
wherein I acquainted you with the action of Capt. Henry F. Picking, U. S.
Navy, commanding naval forces, South Atlantic Station, in denying protection
to certain American vessels which were about to unload cargoes at the port
of Rio de Janeiro in a zone described by the islands of Cobras, Enxadas, and
Santa Barbara, I have the honor to report that Capt. Picking still adheres
to his decision in this matter, and that the commercial operations of
American vessels are now carried on by sufferance of the insurgent
commander.
This unfortunate situation arose through the construction placed upon your
instructions to me of November 1 by Capt. Picking, who contends that the
question of protection to life in commercial operations is not included
therein, and, therefore, he can not guarantee safety to persons so engaged.
Also, that as the government had by order of the captain of the port, copy
inclosed, directed the removal of all vessels anchored in the above
described zone in order that an attack might be made upon those islands it
became the line of fire, and vessels anchored there or at the docks
bordering on the zone could not be protected.
As this ruling would practically result in a blockade of the port and was
contrary to the spirit if not the letter of your instructions of September
28, October 11, and November 1, I sought to confer with Capt. Picking in
regard to the matter and therefore addressed to him a communication on
December 22, by reference to which (enclosure No. 2), you will more fully
understand my position.
The question seemed to be what constituted a line of fire? I contended and am
of the same opinion that an irregular and desultory firing was not the line
of fire which your instructions direct should not be interfered with, but it
must be actual and maintained.
If the irregular and desultory discharge of guns be a line of fire, then the
entire bay is one, and has been, since the commencement of the revolution,
which, parried to its logical conclusion, results in the suspension of all
commercial operations.
I am unwilling to recede voluntarily from a position which was inaugurated at
the beginning of the revolution and has been maintained throughout the
entire time, notwithstanding the sudden change in the attitude of the
foreign naval commanders since Saldanha da Gama assumed command of the
insurgent forces. Prior to this time all foreign Governments represented by
naval forces had assumed and maintained a position similar to that of our
Government, as will be seen from a notice to Admiral Mello, copy inclosed,
bearing on the subject. No trouble was reported until December 12, when
suddenly the foreign commanders cut off, temporarily, communication with the
shore and the British authorities promulgated a notice, copy inclosed, that
the commanders could give no further protection. As no change in the status
of the insurgents internationally had taken place, I could see no good
reason for treating them with more consideration under the command of
Admiral Saldanha than had been given them while under the command of Admiral
Mello.
I regret to state that Capt. Picking responded to my communication
[Page 94]
in no manner intended to be
offensive, only in an unnecessarily curt note, of which I inclose you a
copy.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No.
122.—Translation.]
Captain of the Port to
the United States
Consul-General.
Rio de
Janeiro, December 7,
1893.
I ask your excellency to take the necessary steps that the ships of your
country anchored near the Islands of Enxadas, as well as those which are
between that island and Cobras Island and also Santa Barbara, shall be
removed from their anchorages in order that they may not be exposed to
the fire from the main land.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 122.]
Mr. Thompson to
Captain Picking.
Legation of the United States,
Petropolis, December 22,
1893.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your communications dated December 18 and 19, with the
inclosures thereto.
It appears from your reply to the masters of several American vessels,
and your communication of the 17th, that protection was denied to the
vessels anchored in a zone formed by the Islands of Enxadas, Cobras,
Santa Barbara, and those at the docks bordering on that zone, for the
reason that they would be in the line of fire of the insurgents, and,
consequently, to protect them there would be a violation of neutrality.
You further state that the Government “issued a positive and peremptory
order to all merchant vessels to clear the water front.”
Your decision in this matter seems to be the basis for the protests of
the masters of the American vessels to which I referred in a former
communication. Under the circumstances of the case I regret to say I
find it impossible to coincide either in your decision or the reasoning
upon which it is based.
In the first place the Government did not “issue a positive and
peremptory order to all merchant vessels to clear the water front,” as I
understood it, and the subsequent action of the Government affirmed.
The order from the captain of the port to the Consul-General is as
follows:
“I ask your excellency to take the necessary steps that the ships of your
country anchored near the islands of Enxadas as well as those which are
between that island and Cobras Island and also Santa Barbara, shall be
removed from their anchorages, in order that they may not be exposed to
the fire from the mainland.”
There is nothing in this order about “clearing the water front,” or
reference to ships at the docks, but I understand it was hastily
construed by the Consul-General to include ships at the shore and he
included them in his notice until he received a few hours later from the
captain of the port the following:
“I received your note of to-day’s date and note the contents. I have to
declare to you that those ships which are alongside the shoreline (the
wharves) and those which are very near to the same are exempt from (the
necessity of) moving from those points.”
This, it seems to me, settled beyond doubt the question of the consent of
the Government to the landing of the ships, and, indeed, there was no
authority given by the Government to have them moved from the shore. But
in addition to all this the masters of the protesting ships hold special
permits from the Government to land and discharge. Admitting the
legality of the permits, the sovereignty of the Brazilian Government and
its authority over the waters of the port as against unrecognized
insurgents, what other guarantee could they have from any sovereign
state? As to the violation of neutrality and the suggestion that by
going in there we would be aiding the one side, is it not possible that
if you decline to go in purely on the basis of a prejudged motive of the
Government in granting the permits, you maybe aiding the other side in
refusing to accept the guarantee of the legal authorities? I could not
learn at the consulate that the Government had made an order forbidding
[Page 95]
lighters to go to the ships
for the purpose of discharging their cargoes. You say in your letter of
the 12th the senior commanders did not advise Admiral Mello that they
would protect all commerce. I think they did in a general sense assert
their right to do so.
That at least was the spirit of their notice when they gave expression to
these words.
First. “They do not recognize the right of the insurgents’ forces to
interfere in any way with commercial operations in the
bay of Rio de Janeiro, operations which should be allowed to be
accomplished freely everywhere except in the actual lines of fire of the
batteries of the land fortifications. In consequence they have decided
to protect merchandise not only on board their countries’ vessels or
those that put themselves under their flag, but also on lighters,
barges, and other means of maritime transport whatever may be the
nationality to which they belong, provided they be employed by these
same ships in commercial operations.”
The spirit of this notice is the international right to protect foreign
commerce generally against the illegal interference of the insurgents.
It can not be denied that the Brazilian Government, when it granted the
permits to land and discharge cargoes, assumed responsibility for any
damage they might subsequently inflict upon the vessels by the firing
from the shore. To allow the insurgents to stop their operations by
firing upon them when they have complied with all the legal requirements
of the port, is practically recognizing an illegal blockade to commerce.
Again, admitting for argument that you are right in deciding that the
zone described embraces the line of fire of the insurgents, can that
line be imaginary? If so, has not the entire bay been from the beginning
a line of fire? Does the insurgent line of fire cover the entire water
front? If it does and is not actual, but imaginary, how can any ships
land without their consent? If they can not, is it hot practically a
blockade to commerce? Have the insurgents (not having been recognized) a
right to forcibly stop the carrying on of our commerce with Brazil? Your
position seems to give an affirmative answer.
The position taken by me in the published notice of September 29, which
was concurred in at the time by you and afterwards adopted by all the
superior commandants, negatives such a right. There has been no change
in the legal status of the contending parties since that time. If the
insurgents had no such right then, neither have they now. True, the
Government may be benefited by the non recognition of the insurgents,
but they enjoy that benefit under universally recognized principles of
the law of nations. Why should those principles be disregarded in this
case? If they can object to commerce being carried on by American ships
at the docks, they can extend that objection to any other part of the
bay, and so cause an effective blockade of the port. There is no escape
from this result. From my observation and knowledge of their resources,
to cover the distance embraced in the zone referred to by you the
insurgent line of fire must necessarily be desultory and imaginary, not
continuous and actual. In my opinion the promiscuous and irregular
discharge of guns does not constitute a line of fire which my
instructions of November 1 directed to be observed.
I have wired the Department concerning your action, and expressed the
opinion that the instructions of November 1 should be observed.
It can not be shown that the insurgents have gained any position that
warrants a change in our attitude. Saldanha says he will endeavor to
prevent merchandise passing to the custom-house or shore. For myself, I
will not, without opposition, surrender our commercial rights at the
dictation of an irresponsible force.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 3 in No.
122.—Translation.]
Naval Commandants to
Rear-Admiral de Mello.
On
Board the Italian Cruiser Etna,
Rio de Janeiro, November 6,
1893.
The commanders of the foreign naval forces of Germany, England, the
United States of America, France, Italy, and Portugal assembled on board
the Etna have observed that in spite of the
orders that Admiral de Mello has given to his subordinates, acts have
been performed on the part of the Brazilian insurgent forces to prevent
commercial transactions in the bay and port of Rio de Janeiro.
The Portuguese boat Alice was ordered to change
her anchorage with the threat of having her cargo taken when put on
lighters. Goods were taken by order of Naval Capt. Elieser Continho
Cavanes from the lighter in the employ of the German boat Santos and were restored only upon the demand of
the commander of the German
[Page 96]
naval forces. On account of these acts and of the apprehension that
results therefrom, the commerce of all nations has suffered for a long
time, either directly or indirectly.
This state of things being contrary to the legitimate interests that
commanders of the naval forces are hound to have respected, they have
unanimously taken the following decision, which they bring to the
knowledge of Rear-Admiral de Mello:
First. They do not recognize the right of the insurgent forces to
interfere in any way with commercial operations in the bay of Rio de
Janeiro, operations which should be allowed to be accomplished
everywhere except in the actual lines of fire of the batteries of the
land fortifications.
In consequence they have decided to protect merchandise, not only on
board their countries’ vessels or those that put themselves under their
flag, but also on lighters, barges, and other means of maritime
transport, whatever may be the nationality to which they belong,
provided they be employed by these same ships in commercial
operations.
Second. In order to avoid all disputes, these means of transportation or
their tugs shall carry at their prow the flag of the country under whose
protection they may be.
Third. The commanders of the foreign naval forces strongly hope that
these measures will put an end to unfortunate incidents that they would
find it necessary to repress.
Signed by the commanders of the German, English, French, Portuguese,
American, and Italian naval forces.
[Inclosure 4 in No. 122.]
notice.
British
Consulate-General,
Rio de
Janeiro, December 12,
1893.
All communication between Her Majesty’s ships and Rio has been stopped,
owing to the dangerous force of the Government batteries at Nictheroy
and the rifle fire of the insurgents. The guard boat appointed to attend
upon the diplomatic corps has been withdrawn. Until the Government
assigns some safe landing place out of the line of fire, no further
communication can be held between the shipping and Rio. Admiral Saldanha
has informed the foreign naval commanders that he will endeavor to
prevent any merchandise passing into the custom-house or to the shore.
All boats making any landing along the shore of Rio run very great risk
of being fired into, and men-of-war can not give protection to anyone
foolish enough to run any such risk after this warning.
[Inclosure 5 in No. 122.]
Capt. Picking to
Mr. Thompson.
U. S.
Cruiser Charleston,
Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, December 24,
1893.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your communication of the 22d instant. I acted on your advice
once, very much to my regret ever since. I have informed you of this
verbally heretofore.
I am, sir,
Henry F. Picking.
Captain, U. S. Navy,
Commanding U. S. Naval
Forces, South Atlantic Station.
