Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President, Transmitted to Congress December 2, 1895, Part I

Mr. Thompson to Mr. Olney.

Legation of the United States,
Petropolis, August 7, 1895. (Received Aug. 30.)

No. 393.]

Sir: Referring to my No. 391, of July 30, 1895, in regard to the occupation of the island of Trinidad by a British force and inclosing a copy of the published correspondence on the subject between the minister for foreign affairs and the British minister accredited to this Government, I now have the honor to inclose a translation of that correspondence which appeared in the Rio News of July 30.

There are no further developments of importance, and, as stated in my former dispatch, the matter awaits the consideration of the British Government.

Meetings of protest and indignation continue to be held throughout the States, and the entire country is aroused to the apparently unjust and untenable pretensions of Great Britain.

Our Government has come in for some criticism by the local press on account of the supposed knowledge we had of the occupation at the time and the absurd report that the British took it only in anticipation of an American occupation which had been planned and was about to take place.

I have, etc.,

Thomas L. Thompson

.

[Inclosure in No. 393.—Extracts from Rio News.]

Document A.—Telegram.

To the Brazilian Legation, London:

Financial News gives account of occupation of island of Trinidad in name of English Government. Inform without delay.

Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Document B.—Telegram.

London, 21, 7, ʼ95.

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rio:

Lord Salisbury absent. Learned from foreign office that island of Trinidad has been occupied in name of Government since last January for Argentine submarine cable; no publicity nor official notification. First English occupation 1700, Dr. Halley. English colony established 1781; afterwards abandoned our people, English immigrants, 1789. Since then regular visit English war vessels, last being Ruby 1889, which left signs of visit without protest any nation. It is asserted there was no vestige of other occupation.

Correa.

Document C.

On the 19th instant I had the honor of learning from Mr. Constantine Phipps, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty, in regard to the account published by various journals of the occupation of the island of Trinidad in the Atlantic Ocean between South America and the west coast of Africa by subjects of Her Majesty, that the report did not, seem to him to be unfounded. I immediately remarked that since this island belonged to the Republic of the United States of Brazil, the occupation would be illegitimate and inoperative (nao poderia prevalecer). I asserted that such control was inadmissible, as I would prove at the proper time. I informed him that not only had I telegraphed to the Brazilian legation at London for information on the subject, but also that the public mind would be agitated at a time like this in which other facts of an international character are moving and exciting the natural and noble feeling of nationality.

The Paiz having on the following day announced the intention of the Federal Government to send to that island a war vessel for the purpose of ascertaining whether the occupation had been really effected, Mr. Phipps had the courtesy to call on me at 3 o’clock p.m. to say that, more fully informed, he was able to state that since last February the island had been occupied in the name of the English Crown as abandoned territory on which there were no signs of its possession by any other nation. I did not conceal my surprise, not to say annoyance, on hearing this, and I renewed the statements which I had made on the previous day, supported by historical antecedents and the evidence of geographers.

All doubt as to the reality of the occupation being thus removed, Mr. Phipps said that it would be well to suspend the order for sending the man-of-war, since he would inform his Government of my remarks and within forty-eight hours would probably receive instructions for his guidance in regard to this incident, so disagreeable to the relations which are fortunately maintained between the two countries, Brazil and England.

I now proceed to perform the duty of stating here, as I promised Mr. Phipps, the reasons which led me to classify as illegitimate the recent occupation of the island of Trinidad. Permit me, however, to say, in the first place, that by telegram received yesterday the Brazilian legation in London informed me that it had learned from the foreign office that the occupation took place in last January in the name of the English Government for the service of the Argentine submarine cable, without publicity or any notification whatever.

The island of Trinidad, as Mr. Phipps is aware, is situated in 20° 31ʹ south latitude and 13° 47ʹ 57" longitude east from Rio de Janeiro, and according to the Practice of Navigation and Nautical Astronomy of H. Rapper (lieutenant, Royal Navy, 7 London, 1862), is 651 geographical miles from the point situated in the same latitude on the coast of the State of Espirito Santo. It was discovered in 1501 by the Portuguese, and it was only on April 15, 1700, that the English captain, Edmund Halley, arrived there, J. Cook touching there on his second voyage, on May 31, 1775.

In 1781 the Government of Great Britain, being then at war with that of Spain, caused the island to be occupied for the purpose of harassing the Spanish trade with the colonies of the Plate. This led to serious complaints addressed by Spain to Portugal, which ordered the viceroy of Brazil to send an expedition to cause it to be disoccupied. There was then formed, in the year 1782, a Portuguese military establishment, and on the 16th of September of that year the viceroy received orders to open regular communications with the island.

In the voyage of La Perouse in 1785, a Portuguese flag was seen on a mountain, and it was only on February 6, 1795, that the detachment and arms were withdrawn, being conveyed by the frigate Princeza da Beira, which arrived at Rio de Janeiro on October 11 of the same year.

With the independence of Brazil the island of Trinidad ceased to belong to Portugal.

In 1825 the Brazilian corvette Itaparica, commanded by Capt. Diogo Jorge de Brito, visited the island in commission of the Brazilian Government. In 1831 the regency in the name of the Emperor caused surveys and investigations to be made with a view to making use of the Islands. Moreover, in commission from the Government, the corvette D. Isabel visited it in 1856, the corvette Bahiana in 1871, the corvette Nictheroy in the same year and in 1884, and recently the transport Penedo, in April, 1894, under the command of first lieutenant of the navy, Joaquin Sarmanho.

Before sending the transport Penedo on this commission in 1894 the Government of the Republic had taken steps intended to make use of the island for penitentiary service, as appears from dispatches from the department of justice, dated July 11 and October 14, 1891.

Not to mention Pierre Larousse (Dict. Univ. T. XV), Malte-Brun and Elisee Reclus (the latter as late as 1894) enumerate the island of Trinidad among the possessions of Brazil.

I must also state to Mr. Phipps that under the regime of the Empire the Brazilian Government, by Decree No. 9334, of November 29, 1884, granted permission to Citizen Joao Alves Guerm to explore mines, extract natural products, and establish salt pits on the island of Trinidad, considering it a dependence of what was then the province of Espirito Santo. All this is conclusive.

Occupation is a legitimate method of acquiring domination only with relation to things that have no owner, res nullius, and such are those which are not under the dominion of anyone else, either from never having belonged to anyone or from having been abandoned by their former owner.

In conformity with the rule of nemo suum jactare proosumitur, abandonment is something which is not to be presumed. It depends on the intention of relinquishing, or on the cessation of physical power over the thing, and must not be confounded with simple neglect or desertion. A proprietor may leave a thing deserted or neglected and still retain his ownership. The fact of legal possession does not consist in actually holding a thing, but in having it at one’s free disposal. The absence of the proprietor, neglect, or desertion does not exclude free disposal, and hence animo retinctur possessio.

Gaius (Inst. C. 4, sec. 154) teaches * * * “quoniam possidemus animo solo quum volumus retinere possessionem.”

“Neque vero deseri locum aliquem satis est, ut pro derelicto habendus sit, sed manifestis apparent indicus derelinquendi affectio,” adds Muhlenbruck. (Doctrina pandect, secs. 241 and 251.

Abandonment can only result from the expressed manifestation of the will, for the animus is the possibility of repeating the first will to acquire possession, and, as Savigny teaches (sec. 32), there is no necessity of having constantly the consciousness of possession. Abandonment requires a new act of the will in a contrary direction to that of the first will, animus, in contrarium actus. “Pro derelicto autem hebetus quod dominius ea mente adjecerit ut id rerum suarurm est molit,” in the language of the Institute.

When the thing whose abandonment is alleged in order to legitimize occupation belongs to the dominion of a nation, still more rigorous becomes the necessity of causing the act to rest on some positive and express manifestation of the will of the owner, showing that he does not desire to continue in possession, for in questions of territorial dominion abandonment is not to be presumed. The presumption is not that the thing is a res nullius, as in the case of the Institute. “Insula quae in mare nata est (quod raro accidit) occupantis fit: nullius enim esse creditur.”

If the island of Trinidad was discovered by the Portuguese, whose military occupation thereof continued until 1795; if the facts are historical (and the memory of nations excludes the idea of their being unknown); if the Government by public and positive acts has always shown its conviction that the island of Trinidad is national territory, then the condition of res nullius, which justifies occupation, does not exist.

Possession is lost corpore only when the ability to dispose of a thing is rendered completely impossible, after the disappearance of the status which permits the owner to dispose of the thing possessed.

If Brazil has not displayed by any express act the intention (vontade) of abandoning the island, which had been adjudicated to the Brazilian continent by the act of this country’s acquiring its political independence; if there does not exist, as Mr. Phipps will agree, a status preventing it from disposing or making use of the island when and as it pleases; if Brazil has preserved intact, together with its dominion, its possession of that island, which is not a res pro derelicto, then its occupation in the name of the English Government is not a legitimate means of acquiring dominion.

Presenting these reflections to Mr. Phipps, I believe that he will not decline to lay them before the Government of Her Majesty, the Queen of England, as a protest against the occupation of the island of Trinidad, which forms a part of Brazilian territory, and I am convinced that, after the removal of the mistaken impression that the said island was abandoned and consequently res nullius, that Government will issue orders for its disoccupation, which will be due homage to the principles of justice and will once more emphasize the mutual desire of the two countries, Brazil and England, to maintain unaltered the relations between them.

However little may be the value of the island of Trinidad, the Federal Government considers itself bound to act in this way, for in any case, if there were conscious or intentional wrong national honor would not be less affected.

I renew to Monsieur le Ministre the assurances of my high consideration.

Carlos de Carvalho.

Document D.

Petropolis, July 20, 1895.

Monsieur le Ministre: I did not fail, subsequent to my interview with your excellency on Friday and Saturday last, to communicate to Her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs your excellency’s observations relative to the assumption by Her Majesty’s Government of the island of Trinidad.

I am instructed to inform your excellency that the possession of the island in question was first taken by Great Britain in the year 1700. No evidence was then found of Portuguese possession and no protest was made by Portugal. In the opinion, therefore, of the Marqius of Salisbury there can not be any Brazilian title to the island superior to that of Great Britain.

When Her Majesty’s Government resumed possession of that island and of Martin Vaz in January last no trace of foreign occupation was found, and as Trinidad is required as a telegraph cable station Her Majesty’s Government can not consent to waive their rights to it. I have great pleasure in informing Lord Salisbury that your excellency had, in the most friendly manner, shared the view which I did myself the honor of expressing, that it was inexpedient, pending my reference of the question to Her Majesty’s Government, that a Brazilian ship of war should he sent to Trinidad, and I feel convinced that your excellency will not fail to perceive that there can now be no question of sending a ship to assert a right to sovereignty over an island in the possession of Her Majesty’s Government.

I avail myself of the opportunity, Monsieur le Ministre, to renew to your excellency the assurances of my very high consideration.

Con. Phipps.

Document E.

[2d section, No. 22.]

Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rio de Janeiro, July 23, 1895.

At this moment, 25 minutes to 1 o’clock p.m., I have the honor of receiving the note dated the 20th instant, in which Mr. Constantine Phipps, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty, communicates to me, by order of his Government, that possession of the island of Trinidad Was first taken by Great Britain in the year 1700 without protest from Portugal, and that, consequently, in the opinion of Lord Salisbury, principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, there can not be any Brazilian title to the island superior to that of Great Britain. Mr. Phipps adds that the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, having occupied the island of Trinidad and that of Martin Vaz for the purpose of maintaining there a telegraph station, can not consent to relinquish its right thereto.

Mr. Phipps will permit me to say in the reply to be transmitted to Lord Salisbury, that the best proof of the right of Brazil to the island of Trinidad is the solemn, positive, and practical acknowledgment of that right by the English Admiralty, which, on August 22, 1782, issued peremptory orders to the English officer in charge of the island of Trinidad to evacuate it forthwith and deliver it to the Portuguese Government as a part of the possessions of the Kingdom of Portugal in South America subject to the viceroyalty of Brazil.

Mr. Phipps will thus see that Lord Salisbury, in dating the English title from the year 1700, in which Capt. Edmund Halley touched at the island of Trinidad, discovered by the Portuguese in the beginning of the sixteenth century, labors under a mistake which may be readily corrected by having recourse to documents in the archives of the British Government.

I present to Mr. Phipps’s consideration a copy of the instructions given to the captain commanding the ship N. S. dos Prazeres, on December 7, 1782, by the viceroy of Brazil, Luiz de Vasconcellos Souza, for the military establishment on the island of Trinidad which was to follow, as it actually did follow, the withdrawal of the English forces that were intrusively occupying the island. All this the viceroy communicated to his Government on December 20 of the same year.

By these instructions Mr. Phipps will see that Great Britain yielded to justice and reason in disoccupying the island of Trinidad and proclaiming the rights to which Brazil succeeded in virtue of its political independence and in view of the island being under the jurisdiction of the government of Rio de Janeiro.

The title of 1700, alleged by Lord Salisbury, can not resist the evidence of anterior and posterior facts.

I also submit to Mr. Phipps’s appreciation the royal letter of February 22, 1724, in which D. John, King of Portugal, gave orders for taking steps to prevent the English company of Guinea from using the island of Trinidad for the slave trade. It was undoubtedly a solemn protest against the act of Captain Halley in 1700.

I appeal, as behooves me, to the sentiments of justice of the Government of the Queen of Great Britain to remove this cause of disturbance in the friendly relations that it maintains with the Republic of the United States of Brazil. I have no doubt that, after the verification of what I state, the Government of Her Britannic Majesty will spontaneously order the evacuation of the island, as it did in 1782.

And, since Mr. Phipps in the concluding part of his note alludes to the suggestion, which he made to me, of suspending the order for sending a war vessel for the purpose of investigating what is occurring there, and declares that, in view of what is set forth in the name of his Government, there is no longer any necessity for sending it to ascertain whether in occupying the island Her Majesty’s Government is performing an act of sovereignty, I earnestly protest against that assertion, reserving all and any rights of the Republic of the United States of Brazil; and I beg permission to say to Mr. Phipps, confirming what I verbally declared to him to-day, at 11.30 a.m., that, strong in the consciousness of its right, the Republic of the United States of Brazil will not abandon it, confiding, in the first place (antes de tudo), in the sentiments of the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of England.

I renew, Mr. Minister, the assurances of my high consideration.

Carlos de Carvalho.

Document F.

Order issued by the Admiralty of Great Britain for disoccupying the island of Trinidad.

By the commissioners who hold the office of the Lord High Admiral of Great Britain, Ireland, etc.

In obedience to the order of the King, which was communicated to us by Lord Grantham, one of the principal secretaries of state of His Majesty, you are ordered by the present Government to evacuate the island of Trinidad and embark with His Majesty’s subjects and effects there existing on board the vessel which shall deliver you this order, so that you and they may be conveyed to Lisbon, or to England, as may be most expedient to the court of Portugal.

Given under our signet on the 22d day of August, 1782.

Keppel.

Ch. Brett.

T. I. Pratt.

To Capt. Philip d’Auvergne, or to the officer commanding His Majesty’s Britannic forces, left on the island of Trinidad by Commodore Johnstone.

By order of their lordships:

Ph. Stephens.

Three documents in addition to the foregoing accompany the second note of Minister Carlos de Carvalho.

The first of these three documents is a copy of the instructions given by the viceroy of Brazil on December 7, 1782, to the commander of the ship Nossa Senhora dos Prazeres, who is placed in charge of an expedition composed of his own vessel and a frigate, together with three transports, and is ordered to proceed to the island of Trinidad, deliver to the English commander of that island the order of the Admiralty for its evacuation, and take on board the British subjects occupying it, using force if, for unknown reasons, they should fail to obey the order.

The next document is a dispatch from the viceroy of Brazil to the Portuguese Government, dated December 20, 1782, giving an account of the preparations for the expedition and of its departure on the 16th of that month.

The last of the documents offered by the Brazilian minister of foreign affairs as a proof of Portuguese dominion in the island is a royal letter, dated February 22, 1724, and addressed by the Portuguese Government to the captain-general of Rio de Janeiro. This letter alludes to information received by that Government of the landing of English on Trinidad for the purpose of colonizing the island. The vessel which left these colonists proceeded to Ilha Grande for the purpose of trading. This purpose it failed to accomplish because it was twice driven away by Portuguese forces. It then returned to the port of Ajuda and landed its merchandise. The English afterwards loaded with slaves a vessel belonging to the Guinea company, which was supposed to have proceeded to the coast of Brazil.

The Portuguese Government expresses the belief that the object of the English in colonizing Trinidad is to land slaves there, on account of the facility with which the latter may be conveyed from that point to Ilha Grande. It accordingly issues orders for preventing the harm which this trade, in its opinion, would cause to Portugal and Brazil.