(page 731, edition of 1845.) Everything that I have been able to discover in it is opposed to that acquiescence.

The British plenipotentiary expresses himself thus: "Although you have emitted some propositions which do not fail to surprise and astonish me, not pretending to judge them, but that which is very clear is, that there are great principles involved in a discussion into which I cannot legitimately enter; and this consideration is for me an additional motive to desire that this affair may be referred where it may be weighed and examined perfectly. It is proper that the authorities of our two governments should guard themselves well from establishing, by their diplomatic correspondence, false precedents and principles, and not to give, with the object of avoiding a passing difficulty, examples which, in future, may mislead the world;" (page 734.)

For the rest, my government would be disposed to establish, in the matter of local jurisdiction over foreign vessels in its waters, an order of things which would not much differ from that recommended by Mr. Webster, whose luminous ideas in this part coincide, to a certain extent, with those of the government of Chile. But this could. not be effected save by the medium of a treaty which would secure to us reciprocity. Such might be the object of the consular convention mentioned in the 30th article of the treaty of the 16th of March, 1822, between this republic and the United States of America. I seize the present opportunity to indicate to your excellency the propriety of entering into this convention as a means of avoiding delicate disputes and controversies concerning questions which cannot fail to occur frequently.

The last which I have the honor to offer to the attention of your excellency, and not of the least importance, concerning this matter of jurisdiction, is the practice of the United States with Chile. The Chile consul, in California, in an official communication of the 27th of November, 1850, informs the government that the authorities of San Francisco adjudge questions between captains and mariners of Chile vessels to the grave prejudice of masters and owners. Here, then, is a conduct observed by the authorities of the United States which is in manifest opposition to the principles which your excellency has labored to sustain. That alone would justify us in assuming jurisdiction over American vessels, even in matters which, according to the opinion of the most eminent publicists, it would be well to reserve to consuls of the respective nations.

In my opinion, it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the Chile authorities, and, consequently, the captain of the port and maritime governor of Valparaiso, were authorized to exercise jurisdiction on board of the "Addison" whilst she might be anchored in the waters of Chile. Well, he who has the right of jurisdiction, even when, in the exercise of it over the persons and property of foreigners, he departs from the rules of justice, cannot be said to commit an insult against the nation of the stranger. A court of prizes may unjustly condemn neutral property, but would not commit thereby an insult against the nation of the neutral. A foreign vessel may be confiscated by the local laws under the pretext of an infraction of the revenue laws of the country; the proceeding of confiscation might be unjust

in itself, but ought not to be considered as an insult to the flag of the vessel. The injustice would give the right to the injured party to obtain the proper pecuniary indemnification-nothing more. The United States themselves have attempted reclamations in favor of their citizens, for acts carried into effect by Chile adjudications, which they characterized as unjust; but it never has occurred to them to aggravate them by characterizing them as insults to the nation or to the American flag. The enlightened understanding of your excellency cannot fail to discover the consequences to the good understanding of nations and the peace of the world which would result from a contrary

rule.

It only remains to observe, that the visit of the maritime governor of Valparaiso on board the "Addison" was not a spontaneous act on his part; he was induced (provocado) to it by the mariners in question. He could not omit it without a culpable abandonment of his duty. If in it he transcended due limits in other respects, if he made a tortious use of his jurisdiction, that is another point which will presently be discussed.

It may be deduced from the same principles that the quality of impressment cannot be given to the act under discussion, in the sense which the American publicists give to that word, and which has been for so many years a matter of debate between the United States and Great Britain. An extraction of mariners from a foreign vessel is not an impressment when it is executed as a jurisdictional proceeding, although it might be unjust, although it might be forced. Concerning this matter it is sufficient for me to refer to the lengthy discussions which have taken place between the American and British governments. The former has denied to the latter the right which it arrogated to itself of drawing out of American vessels, not only in British ports, but on the high seas, the mariners who were, or were supposed to be, native subjects of Great Britain, without other reason than that of the right which their native country had to their services as such subjects. Thus it is, that in the objections of the American ministers to such a right, they have insisted, now, on the instability of the principle and the liberty of the individuals to throw off ("abdicar") the character of subjects of a particular state; now, that no law of any country prohibited mariners from enlisting in a time of peace on board of a foreign vessel; now, in the difficulty of distinguishing the nationality between Englishmen and North Americans; now, on the vexations and grievances with which such a practice could not fail to be accompanied in respect to those mariners to whose services Great Britain could not allege any title; in fine, reasons have been insisted upon which do not appertain to the point of local jurisdiction of which we are treating, and which, as I have before said, Mr. Webster himself, in the same note cited by your excellency, distinctly recognises. I might well allege that a real impressment has not been looked upon by the American government as an insult to its flag, but a grave and pernicious injustice. The American government is not a government of those who would have swallowed an insult from any nation without obtaining proper satisfaction; nor is it a government of those who, for the purpose of characterizing an insult, do not attend to the

nature of the act, but to the strength of the state to which the offence is imputed.

It would be lawful for me to urge also two important concessions made by Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of the United States, in the instructions which he gave to Mr. King, the American minister in London, on the 8th of June, 1796. "If afterwards," (the arrival of an American vessel at a port of the British colonies,) "any augmentation should be made to it (the crew) with British subjects, these may be taken out. In the ports of Great Britain and Ireland, the impressment of British subjects which may be found on board of our vessels must, doubtless, be admitted-[must doubtless be admitted."] Your excellency cannot do less, as I conceive, than to acknowledge that these two rules are perfectly applicable to almost all the mariners concerned in this case, whose Chile character has not been denied, and who, besides, enlisted in Talcahuano. So that even considering the extraction as an impressment, (which I am very far from admitting,) the reclamation of your excellency could not justly be made, except as it relates to that one only of the mariners extracted who was not a Chileno, ("el reclamo de VS. no pudiera recaer justamente sino sobré aquel solo de los marineros extraidos qui no era Chileno.")

I should say that in the extract which your excellency has furnished me from a note of Mr. Webster, in that of your excellency of the 16th of March last, I think concessions are found which are sufficiently removed from the severity of your excellency. Mr. Webster recognises a difference between the impressment of mariners of the nation which exercises it, and that of mariners of other nations. Mr. Webster does not appear to disavow the legitimacy of the impressment in the territory of the nation which exercises it, in the case of mariners who, by their birth, belong to it.

But it is not necessary for me to avail myself of these allegations, however well founded they may be. The reasoning of Mr. Webster, according as your excellency has expounded it, is only applicable to the impressment which is exercised in the case of national mariners from the fact of being such; and the circumstances of the present case show that the visit of the maritime governor of Valparaiso on board of the "Addison" did not have for its object the exercise of such a right. The government of Chile has never pretended to exercise it.

My persistence in the right of jurisdiction might appear contradictory to what I had the honor to say to your excellency in one of my preceding notes, when I stated that the maritime governor of Valparaiso did not go on board the "Addison" to exercise jurisdiction, but simply as a mediator. Our laws permit Chile magistrates to exercise this function of mediation when the parties desire it, especially in the matter of personal grievances. The maritime governor of Valparaiso went on board of the "Addison" with this object, and that which passed there appears to have left in his mind the impression of its not having transcended the limits of a mediation offered and joyously accepted. But it is indifferent what opinion may be formed concerning this. If there was no voluntary acceptance on the part of the captain of the "Addison," the extraction of the mariners was

a jurisdictional act; whether conformable to the rules of justice or not, may be examined at its proper time.

It results from what has been said, that if the conduct of the maritime governor of Valparaiso was an act of impressment, it was, notwithstanding, legitimate relative to all the mariners extracted, with the exception of one only, according to the opinion of one, and perhaps two American Secretaries of State; because those mariners were Chilenos, and had been a short time before enlisted ("enganchodos") in a Chile port. And if the conduct of the maritime governor is looked upon as a jurisdictional act, as it ought to be, it is incontestable that the jurisdiction which he exercised belonged to him ("le competia”) concerning all the mariners of the "Addison," according to all the authorities above cited, and according to the practice of American functionaries themselves with Chile vessels. Nor will it be too much to say that even the writers themselves who wish to except from the local jurisdiction the disputes between captains and mariners are not far from making ("no distan de hacer') an exception to this rule in the case of one of the disputants belonging to the country which exercises the jurisdiction. But there are other grave circumstances. The enlistment ("el enganchio,") of the Chile mariners in Talcahuano has all the appearances of illegality. It is required (“está prevenido") for the shipment of a Chile mariner on board of a foreign vessel in our ports, that a formal contract between the captain and mariner, made out ("formulada") in the terms of the printed model which Í I have the honor to transmit to you, shall be necessary. The document containing this contract was asked of the captain of the "Addison," even through the intervention of his consul, and it could not be obtained. When this gentleman gave the assurance that having examined ("refiviendose") the papers of the vessel, he found that the mariners had been legally shipped, it is probable he did not have before him the obligation of the formal contract which I have pointed out, and that he conceives that the signature of any one of the public officers at Talcahuano would be sufficient. This is, at least, what results from the investigations made by order of the government concerning the matter. By all means, the exhibition of the contract was an essential requisite for every reclamation concerning Chile mariners enlisted in Chile.

Your excellency appears to deny the right of the local authority to take cognizance, in contracts of enlistment of mariners, in Chile ports, with the object of making them serve on board of foreign vessels; and I, for my part, disavow the principle in which is founded the denial of a right which undoubtedly enters into the sphere of the attributes of sovereign power, to which no one disputes the competency to subject foreign commerce, within its own territory, to the restrictions which may appear convenient to it. The power of enlisting mariners is one which may be easily abused, in prejudice of the interests of the country. Could the right of prohibiting, absolutely, the enlistment of Chile mariners in Chile territory be denied us? And for the purpose of making this provision effective, would it not be necessary, at least, that the local authorities should inspect the roll and assure themselves that new enlistments had not been made, in violation of the

law? Chile has not proceeded so far; she permits in her territory the enlistment of Chile mariners under the condition of the contract whose model accompanies this. The captain who receives Chile mariners in Chile, without complying with this condition, infringes Chile laws, and exposes himself to all the consequences of the illegality of the act. The right of promulgating laws supposes the right of having them executed within the territory to which their authority extends, and that of taking all necessary measures to prevent their being infringed or eluded.

By the light of the principles which I have had the honor to expound to your excellency, it is not difficult to form an estimate ("calificar) of the facts.

The maritime governor of Valparaiso, in consequence of a complaint of certain mariners of the "Addison," went on board of that vessel, and could exercise jurisdiction in it; consequently, and as a corollary of this same power, could assume the office of mediator between the parties. Concerning that which occurred on board of the "Addison," there is a contradiction between that which was stated to the intendente of Valparaiso by the maritime governor, on the one hand, and that which was stated to the United States consul at that port, by the captain of the "Addison," on the other.

Judging from the circumstances that took place subsequently to the visit of the maritime governor, it would appear that everything that may have passed between them was of a tranquil and friendly character. But I have no necessity of insisting on this. The jurisdiction may have been executed in an agreeable manner; the governor may have ordered the taking away of the mariners in an authoritative manner, in consequence of what the parties had laid before him. All that can be said is, not that the governor arrogated to himself a jurisdiction that did not belong to him, but that he made an evil use of it; that he took upon himself an unjust proceeding. This, it appears to me, is the only ground upon which the question can be placed.

That the extraction of the mariners was not an impressment; that though it were an impressment, it would not have constituted an insult to the flag of the United States, are deductions which appear to me sufficiently proved in the first part of this note.

Not only ought the question to be reduced, as I have before said, to the point of the justice or injustice of the proceeding of the maritime governor, but the reclamation ought to be confined solely to the mariner, of those extracted, who was not a Chileno. As for the others, not having presented the contract of enlistment required by the law of Chile, there is every reason to believe that they were illegally embarked.

There remain two points to which I hope your excellency will direct your attention with those sentiments of equity which characterize you:

1. Was the proceeding of removing the French mariner unjust? 2. Supposing it to have been unjust, was not a most liberal reparation spontaneously offered to the captain by the authorities of Valparaiso, proposing to replace all the mariners taken away?

The undersigned will discuss the questions which I have just stated