Mr. de Figanière would here recall to the Honourable Mr. Webster's attention the state of the negotiations between the two Governments on this subject. So early as the year 1816 the Chevalier Corréa de Serra, His Most Faithful Majesty's Plenipotentiary, apprised Mr. James Monroe, the then Secretary of State, of these illegal armaments in Baltimore. In March, 1818, that Minister claimed indemnification by the Government of the United States, for the losses sustained by Portuguese subjects from the captures made by the said privateers, to which application the Secretary of State, in a note dated the 14th of said March, replied that, 'The Executive having used all its power to prevent the arming of vessels in its ports against nations with whom it was at peace, and having put into execution the acts of Congress for keeping neutrality, it could not consider itself obliged to indemnify foreign individuals for losses arising from captures upon which the United States had neither command nor jurisdiction.

The Undersigned willingly admits that if the Executive of the United States had used all its power to prevent the arming of vessels within its territory, and their sailing from its ports against the commerce of Portugal, no claim could have been set up by, or in behalf of, Portuguese subjects against the Government of the United States, but that the only remedy would have been against the wrong-doers in the Courts of Law of the United States. But, in point of fact, the fitting out of these privateers was so notorious, that by due diligence on the part of the Government and the officers of the United States, the evil might have been prevented.

The Chevalier Corréa, in another communication addressed to the Secretary of State, dated July 16, 1820, renewed his application, and proposed that the United States should appoint Commissioners with full powers to confer and agree with Her Majesty's Ministers in what reason and justice demand.'

In a further letter from that Minister to Mr. J. Q. Adams, dated 26th August of the same year, the names of the officers of the Navy of the United States are given who, in October 1818, embarked and served on board the armed schooner, 'General Artigas.' The said schooner sailed under the socalled Artigan flag, and cruised for many months on the coast of Brazil, capturing several Portuguese vessels, among others the Sociedade Feliz,' which was brought to Baltimore.

The names of said officers, as given by Mr. Corréa, were Lieutenants Peleg and Dunham, of Rhode Island, and Midshipman Augustus Swartout, of New York, and Benjamin S. Grimke, of South Carolina.

Mr. Adams, in a letter addressed to the Portuguese Minister, dated the 30th of September, 1820, declines the appointment of Commissioners as proposed, and intimates that the Portuguese

T

subjects who may have suffered wrongs, have a remedy in the Courts of Justice, but that for any acts of the citizens of the United States, committed out of their jurisdiction and beyond their control, the Government of the United States is not responsible.' Mr. Adams adds, that in the war in South America, to which Portugal had for several years been a party, 'the Government of the United States had neither countenanced nor permitted any violation of neutrality by their citizens.'

The Undersigned, without intending to impute criminal negligence to the Government of the United States in this matter, may be permitted to observe, that citizens of the United States were permitted, whilst within their jurisdiction and under the control of the Government, to fit out armed vessels to go forth from the ports of the United States, filled with American citizens, to prey upon the commerce of Portugal.

Her Most Faithful Majesty's Government and the Undersigned will readily admit that the Government of the United States did not support or countenance these proceedings, which were in direct violation of the laws of nature, of nations, and of these United States; but it is conceived that the American Government was, to a certain extent, remiss in not using more efforts in suppressing these expeditions, and that a liability results from that remissness. In April, 1822, Mr. Jozé A. Grehon, Chargé d'Affaires of Portugal, in a letter to the Secretary of State of that day, requires that Commissioners should be chosen by both Governments, for the purpose of arranging the indemnities justly due to Portuguese citizens, for the damages which they have sustained by reason of piracies, supported by the capital and the means of the United States.'

To this application the Secretary of State replied, on the 30th of April, 1822, that he could not accede to the appointment of Commissioners for the purpose stated, and says: 'It is a principle well known and understood, that no nation is responsible to another for the acts of its citizens, committed without its jurisdiction, and out of the reach of its control.'

Mr. Webster will not fail to perceive that the complaint is really grounded upon the acts of American citizens committed within the jurisdiction of the United States, and within the reach of the control of their Government; that is to say, the fitting out of armaments within the ports of the United States, to despoil Portuguese commerce.

This subject has, since the above date, been repeatedly renewed verbally, if not in the correspondence of Messrs. T. S. Constancio, J. Banozo Perura, and Torlades d'Azambuja, down to 1835; and upon the renewal of the old claims of the United States against Portugal, both the Undersigned and his Government have repeatedly adverted to these long standing and vastly more important counter claims.

The law of nations on this subject does not appear to be at all doubtful. It is laid down by Vattel (b. ii. ch. v. sec. 72-77), that the nation, or the Sovereign, ought not to suffer the citizens to do an injury to the subjects of another State, much less to offend that State itself, and this not only because no Sovereign ought to permit those who are under his command to violate the precepts of the law of nature, which forbids all injuries, but also because nations ought mutually to respect each other, to abstain from all offence, from all injury, from all wrong; in a word, from everything that may be of prejudice to others. If a Sovereign, who might keep his subjects within the rules of justice and peace, suffers them to injure a foreign nation either in its body or its members, he does no less injury to that nation than if he injured it himself. In short, the safety of the State and that of human society requires this attention from every Sovereign; if you let loose the reins of your subjects against foreign nations, these will behave in the same manner to you, and instead of the friendly intercourse which nature has established between all men, we shall see nothing but one vast and dreadful scene of plunder between nation and nation.'

It appears to the Undersigned that the only question to be examined is, whether the Government of the United States could, by the exercise of a reasonable degree of diligence, have prevented its citizens from going out of its ports in armed vessels to cruise against the commerce of Portugal-a friendly nation with which the United States had ever been at peace, and had uninterrupted commercial relations.

The law of nations, as understood in modern times, is laid down with accuracy in the Report (No. 290), of the 10th of January, 1818, of the Committee of Foreign Relations, 15th Congress, 1st Session:

6

'It is a matter of public notoriety,' it says that two of the persons who have held successively the command at Amelia Island, whether authorized themselves by the Government or not, have issued commissions for privateers, as in the name of the Venezuelan and Mexican Governments, to vessels fitted out in the ports of the United States, and chiefly manned and officered by our own countrymen, for the purpose of capturing the property of nations with which the United States are at peace; the immediate tendency of suffering such armaments, in defiance of our laws, would have been to embroil the United States with all nations whose commerce with our country was suffering under these depredations, and if not checked by all means in the power of the Government, would have authorized claims from the subjects of foreign Governments for indemnification at the expense of this nation, for captures by our people in vessels fitted out in our ports, and, as could not fail to be alleged, countenanced by the very neglect of the necessary

means of suppressing them.'-(American State Papers, Vol. IV. p. 133).

The Undersigned respectfully states, that the captures in question were made by American citizens, in vessels fitted out in ports of the United States, and that the fitting out of these vessels, he verily believes, was 'not checked by all the means in the power of the Government,' but that there was a 'neglect of the necessary means of suppressing' those expeditions.

The public notoriety of these expeditions is easily shown. A reference to Niles's Register,' and other organs of public information published in those times, will suffice for this purpose; and nothing was more generally known at Baltimore, than that these expeditions were commonly fitted out at that port. Indeed, privateers were not only equipped in Baltimore, but they were accustomed to bring their captures there for sale. The Government of the United States might, by the exercise of due diligence, have become acquainted with the facts, and prevented the privateers from sallying forth.

The Chief, Artigas, did not possess a single seaport, as has been stated, and the so-called privateers gave no security that they would conduct their cruises according to the laws and usages of war, and bring in their prizes for adjudication. They were rather pirates than privateers, and, it is respectfully submitted, the Government of the United States should have exerted itself so as efficiently to prevent their repeated and longcontinued depredations. There were a large number of these so-called privateers, at least 28 or 30, preying upon the commerce of Portugal.

The authorities of the State of Maryland were evidently negligent in permitting these warlike preparations in the port of Baltimore, and as no claim can be made by Portugal against that State, all complaints founded upon the negligence of the State authorities must, of course, be made against the Government of the United States, and this Government is therefore, as the Undersigned conceives, liable for that neglect.

As already stated, in some instances the privateers brought their prizes into the ports of the United States, and the cargoes were sold, and upon such cargoes duties were levied and paid as upon a regular importation. The Undersigned conceives that justice demands these duties, with interest, should be returned to Her Majesty's Government for the use of the parties interested in such cargoes.

Mr. de Figanière would here beg leave to state, by way of example, the particulars of one of the captures complained of. The ship 'Monte Allegre,' measuring over 800 tons, with a very valuable cargo of colonial produce, was captured on the 5th June, 1820, on her voyage from Bahia to Lisbon, in the waters of

Azores, by the privateer brig 'La Fortuna,' under the command of John Chace, and taken to Baltimore. Judicial proceedings were instituted in that city against the said captain and owners of the 'La Fortuna,' and her prize and cargo were attached. It was proved that the captured property was Portuguese, and that the privateer had been armed and equipped at Baltimore, and had sailed from that port, where her owners and commander, citizens of the United States, resided. It was accordingly adjudged that the capture was unlawful; but, it is clear, that this adjudication does not in any manner affect the cause of complaint against the United States Government, for the want of due diligence on the part of the authorities of the United States, in not preventing the 'La Fortuna' (which made many other valuable captures) from being fitted out as aforesaid.

In every instance, the Undersigned believes, the claims of the Portuguese subjects presented in the Courts of the United States against private individuals, citizens of the United States, who were concerned in such captures, were unavailing; sometimes from the failure of the purchasers of the prizes or cargoes to pay the purchase money, such sales being made by orders of the Courts, and credit given to the purchasers under such judicial sales; and often in consequence, as has been represented to the Undersigned, of the overwhelming influence of the interested parties, against the foreign claimant.

To use the language of the Committee on Foreign Relations, before referred to: The subjects of Her Majesty are entitled to indemnification at the expense of the United States, if the privateering or piratical expedition in question were not checked by all the means in the power of the American Government.' And although the parties injured might also prosecute the wrong-doers, either civilly or criminally, in the Courts of the United States, this right by no means interferes with-the Undersigned will repeat or detracts from, the claim upon the Government of the United States, founded upon the reason before referred to.

Indeed, in almost every case, the right to sue the wrongdoers would be but a merely nominal remedy. It could scarcely ever happen that either the value of the ship and cargo captured could be recovered from the privateers, and in no case would the losses sustained by the failure of the adventure, and the loss of the liberty of the crews, be compensated for.

Mr. de Figanière begs again to submit, in the name of his Government, to the Hon. Daniel Webster, the former proposition, as the only proper course which suggests itself to his mind in order to arrive at a just and equitable conclusion of this longpending matter; that Commissioners should be appointed to ascertain what Portuguese ships and cargoes were captured by private armed vessels belonging to ports of the United States,