Mr. Assis to Mr. Hay.
Washington, D. C., June 10, 1899.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of May 29 in answer to my own of the 24th of the same month, relating to the incidents connected with the visit of the gunboat Wilmington to the Amazonian waters.
In your note referred to you do not deny, as was to be expected from the enlightened mind of the American Government, the perfect right of Brazil to establish that warships of friendly nations may not navigate the national rivers without special permission, asked for and granted in each case. This implies a recognition that, if the gunboat Wilmington undertook her voyage on the Amazonas without obtaining such permission, she has committed an irregularity, though this irregularity could be explained, as you say, by the assumption that it has been done in good faith.
The question of principle (the only question Brazil desired to clear up in bringing this affair to your consideration) remains thus satisfactorily settled.
But your note enters into other considerations which oblige me to make the following brief observations, with the intention of elucidating some facts, supported, as I am now, by new official information:
I beg to observe that in my note of May 24 I did not state simply that “permission was immediately granted to the commander of the Wilmington” as you affirm in the note I have the honor to consider. These were my very words: “The Federal Government answered immediately, granting the permission, but intimating that it must be demanded by the United States consul in Para, because this was the admitted rule in Brazil.” These simple quotations contradict the conclusions you deduced from them.
The Government of Rio de Janeiro, I affirmed and sustain, answered immediately the governor of Para. It answered that, according to the national laws, the application for permission to navigate the Amazonas should be made by the American consul in Para. The telegram [Page 122] of the governor to the Federal Government was sent on March 16, and the answer was given on the 17th. These dates need no comment.
I am not informed whether the consul made the application which was so courteously and promptly demanded. If not, his conduct would be hardly explainable; if he did, he did wait the answer, and this conduct is not more easily explainable than the former. He could not allege any delay from the Brazilian administration, as you say in your note that the Wilmington undertook her voyage only four days after the 15th; that is to say, only two days after the answer from Rio de Janeiro arrived. Your note says:
The reports which have been submitted to this Department show most explicitly that the commander of the Wilmington had no intention of violating the laws or of offending by action or neglect the authorities of Brazil. His conviction that neglect to reply was equivalent to a tacit permission, if not correct, was undoubtedly sincere.
First, I deny, in view of the facts, any ground for allegation of neglect. Second, it is certain that he who makes a demand of that character could never consider himself authorized to do what he demanded before receiving the concession asked for.
As regards the demeanor of the populace and the manifestations of the press of the Amazonas to which your note refers (and from which I have no official information, but that I can assure you they would be deeply regretted by the Government and the people of Brazil), no responsibility can be attributed to my Government. I believe that the authorities would have made every effort to avoid such sentiments to be transformed in positive injuries, and there the duties and responsibilities cease.
The governor of the State of Amazonas, of whose lack of cordiality you also complain, informs that he has received the American commander with the sincerest manifestations of friendship; but, after he knew the irregular conditions of the voyage, he deemed it his duty to decline any official relations with him.
It may be like the conduct of the captain of the port of Manaos, whose letter in reply to one of the commander of the Wilmington could have only been offensive by the omission of the rank and title of the commander, if that omission would not be a consequence of the want of formality with which the navigation was being performed.
It would be hardly necessary for me to add that the sentiments of Brazil toward the United States of America, as constantly expressed since we exist as a nation, are the strongest presumption that such a disagreeable incident would not occur unless some very serious motives had offended and provoked the popular feelings. It is to be hoped and expected that such motives will never be reproduced. I consider, therefore, useless, Mr. Secretary of State, in answer to the final observation of your note, to affirm, in the name of my Government, that, either in the inland or maritime ports of Brazil, the ships of war of all friendly nations which pay due regard to our laws and sovereignty will be accorded the cordial reception they never fail to receive from the Government and the people of Brazil.
Accept, sir, etc.,