Mr. Gresham to Mr. Young.
Washington, June 8, 1893.
Sir: I inclose a copy of a memorial1 of Mrs. Luella A. Oteri, by which you will see that Mrs. Oteri desires this Government to prefer a claim against Honduras for the alleged seizure of her vessel, the Joseph Oteri, Jr., by Honduran insurgents in the port of Ceiba. She further asks this Government to prefer a claim in her behalf against Honduras on account of the refusal of the Honduran authorities on a subsequent occasion to admit this vessel into the ports of that country. The Department desires you to investigate the circumstances of the seizure of the vessel by the insurgents, and also the circumstances attending the subsequent exclusion of this vessel from Honduran ports. It is particularly desirable to know whether, when the vessel went into the port of Ceiba from New Orleans with cases of arms and ammunition on board, the officer in charge had knowledge of the fact that Ceiba was in possession of the insurgents. It may be mentioned, by the way, that the arms and ammunition were taken aboard in New Orleans after clearance was obtained, and were not included in the ship’s manifest. For this violation of our navigation laws the vessel has been subjected to a fine. It is stated that the fact of the vessel having arms and ammunition aboard was entered in the custom-house at Ceiba upon the arrival of the vessel there, and if the master of the vessel knew, or reasonably might have known, that the insurgents had possession there, this was a practical invitation to them to come aboard and get those arms and this ammunition. The vessel remained three days at Ceiba before she was taken by the insurgents. This is sought to be accounted for, as you will note from the petition, by the fact that a cablegram had been sent to New Orleans to know whether custom-house officers of Ceiba would be allowed on board the Joseph Oteri, Jr., and she was awaiting a reply.
What you are desired to do in this connection is to ascertain whether the circumstances justify the belief that the master of the vessel was acting in good faith and without any intention of playing into the hands of the insurgents, and whether he was, without any negligence or collusion on his part and against his will, actually captured by the insurgents and forced to render to them the service which it is complained he was compelled to render. It is evident that the President of Honduras was at the time under the impression that there was collusion between the master of this vessel and the insurgent authority. You will investigate fully this point.
[Page 353]In connection with the exclusion of this vessel from the ports of Honduras upon her next voyage from New Orleans, you will note what is stated in the memorial, and will ascertain and report upon the facts connected with such exclusion. I may remind you that a vessel belonging to this same line of steamers, which was commanded by Captain Pizatti, is at present under process in the United States courts in New Orleans for violation of our neutrality laws committed by aiding the President of Honduras in the suppression of the rebellion. You will probably have to communicate with and call for reports from the United States consuls at the various points mentioned in the memorial, and you will use your discretion in obtaining otherwise such information as may throw light upon these matters.
I am, sir, etc.,
- Not printed.↩