[CHAP. XIV. Government of a stipulated indemnity for the private claimants. (34th Cong., 3d sess., Senate Ex. Doc. 25; ibid., 36th Cong., 2d sess., 10.)" Lawrence's Wheaton (ed. 1863), 319, 320. A report of Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, Jan. 12, 1857, as to the Aves or Bird Islands, and the title thereto, is given in Senate Ex. Doc. 28, 24th Cong., 3d sess. Further information will be found in instructions by Mr. Marcy, Feb. 3, 1857; by Mr. Cass Aug. 31, 1857, Dec. 15, 1857, Aug. 24, 1858, Sept. 15, 1858, Dec. 10, 1858; and by Mr. Seward July 30, 1862. MSS. Inst., Venez. As to indemnity in respect to, see Mr. Cass to Mr. Sanford, Oct. 22, 1859, quoted supra, § 132. The title of Mr. Shelton and his associates to the use of the Aves Islands is held good, and he is entitled to damages from Venezuela for his forcible ejection. Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ribas, Sept. 11, 1857. MSS. Notes, Venez. Same to same, Mar. 4, 1858. The report of Mr. Black, Sec. of State, Feb. 23, 1861, with the accompanying documents, is given in Senate Ex. Doc. 10, 36th Cong., 2d sess. As to Aves Island convention, see Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Culver, Jan. As to mode of remitting payments received, see Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. (3) LOBOS ISLANDS. The dominion of the Lobos guano islands, west of the coast of Peru, depends, so far as the title of the United States is concerned, on the discovery of the islands by Monell, a citizen of the United States, in 1823. 66 MSS. Dom. Let. Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jewett, June 5, 1852. Upon the present state of the facts and the evidence, this Government cannot admit the right of Peru to drive away United States vessels from the Lobos Islands. "Whatever may be the exclusive rights of Peru to the Lobos or other islands near the Peruvian coast, abounding with deposits of guano, the conviction is deep and general among the consumers of the article in foreign countries, or at least in the United States, that the high price of guano is occasioned by the policy which that Government has thought proper to adopt in reference to its exportation, and that that policy tends to the advantage of a few individuals at the expense of the consumers. If, therefore, the Peruvian Government expects its exclusive claims to be assented to, it will be necessary that its policy upon the subject should be changed." Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Clay, Aug. 30, 1852. MSS. Inst., Peru. "It is proper to add, also, that prior to the receipt of this dispatch, in consequence of the information contained in the one that preceded it, dated 24th June, the President was induced to believe that the claim of Peru to exclusive dominion over these islands was better founded than he had been led to suppose. The orders that had been dispatched to the commander of our naval forces on the Pacific to protect such of our vessels as might wish to take cargoes of guano from these islands were accordingly countermanded some weeks since." Mr. Conrad, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Clay, Sept. 21, 1852; ibid. (4) OTHER ISLANDS. The President cannot annex a guano island (Cayo Verde) to the United States while a diplomatic question is pending between this Government and that of a foreign nation, growing out of a claim of dominion by the latter, over the island. 9 Op., 406, Black, 1859. For a summary of the action of the Government of Peru towards the guano islands on its coast, see report of Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, Mar. 30, 1861. MSS. Report Book. As maintaining the title of the United States to the island of Navassa, see Mr. Fish to Mr. Preston, Dec. 4, 1872. MSS. Notes, Hayti. Same to same, Jan. 10, 1873; ibid. A paper relative to occupation of Navassa Island in 1857, is in Senate Ex. Doc. As to Mr. Brissot's alleged discovery of guano, and as to guano on the Galapagos As to Alta Vela Island, see House Mis. Doc. 10, 40th Cong., 3d sess. Mr. Frelinghuysen, in his correspondence with the Mexican legation at Washington, at 1882, concerning Arenas Key, neither asserted nor renounced the proprietorship of the United States over that island; nor did he affirm that the title thereto rests with the Government of Mexico. He left the question open for lack of evidence sufficient to lead to a satisfactory conclusion in the premises. No such evidence had as yet been submitted to the Department. See Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Romero, Jan. 30, 1886. MSS. Notes, CHAPTER XV. PACIFIC METHODS OF REDRESS. I. APOLOGY, REPARATION, SATISFACTION, AND INDEMNITY. (1) Apology and saluting flag, § 315. I. APOLOGY, REPARATION, SATISFACTION, AND IDEMNITY. (1) APOLOGY AND SALUTING FLAG. § 315. The apologies and reparation offered in the cases of seizure within neutral territorial waters of the Chesapeake (1863) and of the Florida, are detailed supra, § 27, and infra, 315b; the apology in the Trent case and the surrender of Messrs. Mason and Slidell are discussed infra, §§ 325, 328, 374. The delays in the action of Great Britain in making amends for the attack by the Leopard on the Chesapeake are noticed infra, § 315b. The explanations offered of the bombardment of Greytown are considered supra, §§ 50a, 224a. See also infra, § 315d. Lawrence com. sur droit int., 3, 130, 132. As to redress in connection with the attack on the Prometheus, see infra, § 315d. Saluting the flag of a country to which an affront has been offered may be a mode of apology accepted as satisfactory. As an illustration of this topic may be mentioned the saluting of flag after the affront assumed to have been offered to the French consul at San Francisco in 1854, (supra, § 98,) and that after the seizure of the Florida in Brazilian waters. (Supra, § 27). In the Virginius case, elsewhere noticed (infra, § 327), where a vessel bearing the flag of the United States was captured by a Spanish cruiser as a "filibuster," and carried to Cuba, and a number of those on board were shot, reparation was demanded by the Government of the United States, and also a salute to the flag. The reparation was granted; but on its afterwards appearing that the papers of the Virginius were based on a false affidavit of United States ownership, the demand for a salute to the flag was withdrawn. As to saluting flag, see Blackwood's Mag. for Dec. 1873 (vol. 114, 682). The rules, it is said, "of the United States are singularly minute. With reference to the last, it may be observed as an odd fact that, while the American President is saluted in his own fleets with a fixed number of twentyone guns, the official salutes of the United States to foreigners is made up of as many shots as there are States" in the Union. (2) CESSION OF TERRITORY. § 315a. France, by the convention of 1803 (supra, § 148b), ceded Louisiana to the United States, part of the consideration being the satisfaction by the United States of the claims of the United States on France for certain spoliations. See supra, §§ 148, 248. In the treaty of February 22, 1819, Spain ceded the Floridas to the United States, and as an equivalent in part for this cession the United States agreed to renounce all the claims of her citizens against Spain for damages and injuries suffered until the time of the signing of the treaty. The claims thus renounced included those "on account of prizes made by French privateers, and condemned by French consuls within the territory and jurisdiction of Spain," and also those "arising from the unlawful seizures at sea and in the ports and territories of Spain or the Spanish colonies." The United States were to make satisfaction for the claims thus renounced to the extent of five million of dollars. A board of three commissioners sat in Washington to distribute this fund, and under the express terms of the treaty rejected all claims which had been previously compensated by France. A convention entered into July 4, 1831, by the United States and France opened with these words: "The French Government, in order to liberate itself completely from all the reclamations preferred against it by citizens of the United States for unlawful seizures, captures, sequestrations, confiscations, or destructions of their vessels, cargoes, or other property, engages to pay a sum of twenty-five millions of francs to the Government of the United States, who shall distribute it among those entitled in the manner and according to the rules which it shall determine." The cession of Florida in satisfaction of spoliation claims on Spain is discussed supra, § 161a. See further as to this treaty infra, § 318. In the same line may be mentioned the cession of California and other territory by Mexico, supra, § 154. (3) CASE OF CHESAPEAKE AND LEOPARD. § 3156. The main features of the outrage by the Leopard on the Chesapeake in 1807, are elsewhere noticed. (See infra, § 331.) It has also been noticed that when President Jefferson was advised of this outrage he issued a proclamation excluding British ships-of-war from our ports, and requiring that they should not be visited from the shore. (See supra, §§ 27 ff.; infra, § 319.) The effect of this was to make it necessary for them to resort to Halifax for water, provisions, and other conveniences, and this exclusion was set up by the British authorities as a grievance of their own. They refused, therefore, to negotiate as to the reparation to be made for the attack on the Chesapeake until this proclamation was withdrawn. Mr. Madison was willing to promise that the proclamation should be withdrawn as soon as satisfactory reparation was made; but he declined to withdraw the proclamation in advance. It was argued by Mr. Rose, special envoy sent by Great Britain to the United States in 1807, for the settlement of the Chesapeake question, that "if, when a wrong is committed, retaliation is immediately resorted to by the injured party, the door to pacific adjustment is closed and the means of conciliation are precluded." Mr. Madison did not, as Secretary of State, contest this proposition when the retaliation was immediate and effective, but denied that an act of caution, such as was the excluding of British cruisers from our waters, induced by a series of wrongs of which that complained of was only one, could be regarded as such a retaliation. (See correspondence in 3 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 213 ff.) Mr. Madison subsequently agreed that if reparation be "tendered spontaneously" by Great Britain, "on the receipt of the act of reparation here, the proclamation of July 2 shall be revoked." Mr. Madison to Mr. Pinkney, April 4, 1808. MSS. Inst., Ministers. 3 Am. St. Mr. Rose, being instructed to make the withdrawal of the proclamation an essential preliminary, broke off the negotiations at this point, and returned to England. (See supra, §§ 107, 108.) On October 27, 1809, Mr. F.J. Jackson, British minister at Washington, announced to Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, that on the annulling of the President's proclamation, excluding British men-of-war from the harbors of the United States, "His Majesty is willing to restore the seamen taken out of the Chesapeake, on reserving to himself a right to claim in a regular way" the discharge of such as were native-born British subjects or deserters. Support was also tendered for the families of such persons slain on the Chesapeake as were not native-born British subjects or deserters. As it was impossible for the British Government to comply with this pledge from the fact that one of the persons taken had been hung under its direction, and as the whole plan of "satisfaction" assumed the right of the British Government to seize on board an American man-of-war native-born British subjects or deserters, the proposition could not be entertained. And Mr. Jackson's conduct towards the Government in other respects was so insolent, and his cause so flagrantly in violation of the obligations imposed by international law on diplomatic agents, that it became necessary for Mr. Madison to demand his recall. (Supra, §§ 84, 107, 150b.) The following is the correspondence in 1811 on the same topic between Mr. Foster, British minister at Washington, who succeeded Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State: "In pursuance of the orders which I have received from His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, in the name and on the behalf of His Majesty, for the purpose of proceeding to a final adjustment of the differences which have arisen between Great Britain and the United States in the affair of the Chesapeake frigate, I have the honor to acquaint you : |