The Treaty of Paris 1763 (photo of original document) that ended what in the United States is known as the French and Indian War. This treaty forced France to cede to Great Britain all her lands in North America extending west to the Mississippi River. The definitive Treaty of Peace and Friendship between his Britannick Majesty, the Most Christian King, and the King of Spain. Concluded at Paris on the 10th of February, 1763. The King of Portugal acceded to the terms of the treaty the same day.
Hello Truthdetector and Greetings,
Allow me to offer a belated welcome to HH. Thank you very much for your posts which touch on some complex and evolving issues related to Underwater Cultural Heritage and the law of salvage and finds. Your earnest and forthright approach with regard to commanding the details of the subject reflect to your credit and are appreciated.
I am not able, nor do I consider myself fully qualified to answer all of the points you have raised so perceptively with respect to the Juno & Galga.
If I may be allowed to politely adjust the frame of the discussion before moving toward the center of the historical and archaeological picture we are all trying to accurately depict: you raise several strong points. Sea Hunt did, of course, file an in rem admiralty Motion to Arrest Two Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel(s) et al. Pleadings at the District Court level. It is also a well-taken point that the district level pleadings condition Sea Hunt�s characterization of the vessels identities as believed to be Juno and La Galga, as you soundly state; however, at the Appellate level the court summarized Sea Hunt�s position more starkly:
The Commonwealth of Virginia has asserted ownership over LA
GALGA and JUNO pursuant to the
Abandoned Shipwreck Act of
1987 (ASA), 43 U.S.C. SS 2101-06 (1994). The ASA gives states title
to shipwrecks that are abandoned and are embedded in the submerged
lands of a state. See id. S 2105(a) & (c). Sea Hunt is a maritime sal-
vage company based in the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The Virginia
Marine Resources Commission granted Sea Hunt permits to explore
for shipwrecks off the Virginia coast and conduct salvage operations.
Sea Hunt began to explore for shipwrecks within its permit areas and
has spent about a million dollars in conducting remote sensing, sur-
vey, diving, and identification operations.
Sea Hunt claims that its
efforts have resulted in finding the remains of LA GALGA and
JUNO.
(Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 221 F.3d 634 (2000) p.7)
The semantic shift, as we know, is important. From a historical perspective, it might do good service to the discussion at hand to trace what appears to be a shift in the court�s characterization of Sea Hunt�s view(s) of the identity of the Two Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel(s) that were the focus of the case. Did the Appellate Court overstate Sea Hunt�s position in this respect?
I have found Satdiver to be very knowledgeable with respect to the mechanics of arrest pleadings under admiralty and, if I may politely say so, I do not believe that his characterization of the case, particularly the Appellate Court�s decision, is inaccurate. If I may present the issue this way: the ultimate question, among several, before the court in Sea Hunt at both the District and Appellate levels was not whether the vessels found by Sea Hunt were the Juno and La Galga. The question was: which party or parties, i.e., the Kingdom of Spain, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and/or Sea Hunt, could legally assert a claim for ownership, title, or an award (in the case of Sea Hunt) over the vessels commissioned by His Most Catholic Majesty of Spain and referred to as Juno and La Galga. These are two fundamentally different questions: one seeks to be answered by science, the other by the practice and operation of the law.
Moving on with some other casual observations:
1. Sea Hunt recognized the State of Virginia�s jurisdiction by submitting to proper permitting through the authority vested in the Virginia Marine Resources Commission prior to working its state-assigned permit areas. Particularly during the District Court hearing of the case, Sea Hunt appears to have coordinated very closely with the Commonwealth of Virginia in its pleadings. By way of aside, Sea Hunt very much understood and preferred the State of Virginia�s claim under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act.
2. The State of Virginia asserted an interest in the shipwrecks found by Sea Hunt pursuant to the
Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA), as quoted above. The identity of the wreck need not be known in order to satisfy transfer of title and ownership to the State under the provisions of the ASA. Strictly speaking, from the point of view of the State of Virginia�s claim under the ASA, the issue of the identity of the vessel(s) is incidental to questions of the wreck�s situation, location, status, and whether the vessel(s) could legally be found to be abandoned.
3. For Sovereign interests akin to the United States and the Kingdom of Spain, the issue of a shipwreck(s) identity are paramount questions in determining whether or not Sovereign Immunity is operative as a superior ground on which to assert a claim against a wreck.
4. It is important to note that early in the case Sea Hunt put forth the claim in its motions that the vessels were believed to be La Galga and Juno. The scientific community, in a peer review sense (and this underscores the process of peer review) had not at this point in the case weighed the issue of these assemblages� respective identities in any definitive sense to which I am aware (I would greatly welcome any further information on this aspect of the case, by the way). Thus, given the legal facts presented at that time before the court, the Sovereign interests in this case, the Kingdom of Spain, the United States, and the Commonwealth of Virginia are bound to take the statements made by Sea Hunt within pleadings as reasonable assertions of fact until proven otherwise by preponderance of the evidence.
Turning directly to the legal questions commencing with number one:
1. Can an admiralty court acquire legal jurisdiction over a Spanish wreck if that wreck has not in fact been found? The perfection of a claim in rem occurs when an artifact from a specific vessel is arrested and brought into court. Can the court make a valid award without valid jurisdiction?
There are really two distinct parts to this question: jurisdiction and adjudication. Answering these questions in some detail might also address some of the others posed. We will have to quickly look at each part of question one. With respect to jurisdiction, we are able to look to the case law on this subject for some clear guidance. Salvors, particularly salvor�s seeking historical shipwrecks, have frequently advanced arguments grounded on the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments generally seek to question the Federal and District courts� jurisdiction in cases such as the one under discussion. In a recent case, a District Court in Alabama observed:
The law is clear that �
the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the jurisdiction of a federal court over an in rem admiralty action where the res is not within the State�s possession.� Sea Services of the Keys, Inc. v. State of Florida, 156 F.3d 1151, 1153 (11th Cir. 1998) [here the court quotes from the well-known case: California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., 523 U.S. 491. 118, S.Ct. 1464, 140 L.Ed.2d 626 (1998). [as cited by the court in: Fathom Exploration, LLC, v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, etc, in rem (Civil Action 04-0685-WS-L]).
Furthermore, in cases where a State court is involved, the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude such a court from exercising jurisdiction over a vessel not in the State�s actual possession. In such cases where clear statutory laws exist that potentially transfer title and ownership of a vessel to a sovereign interest, the state or federal government may assert a legal claim under such laws. (Again, this issue was treated by the court in:
California v. Deep Sea Research, 523 U.S. at lines 507-08).
With respect to the second part of the question, adjudication, the situation is less clear and remains to be settled. Here much of your constructive criticism finds its mark. The courts seem less sure of their ground and have stated tentatively that while claim to a vessel may be transferred to a sovereign interest, this claim may not necessarily be adjudicated until the question of positive identity is established. Presumably through proper archaeological science. That is to say, the courts appear to have ruled that sovereign interests may assert a claim against any vessel that may fit certain established criteria; however, adjudication of the claim is very likely conditional upon the vessel meeting legal standards set forth under the law with respect to identity (non-commercial service under the flag of a sovereign nation, location and situation of the wreck within sovereign jurisdiction, etc. (again see: Fathom Exploration, LLC, v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, etc, in rem (Civil Action 04-0685-WS-L).
I must say I am very interested in the archaeological debate concerning the evidence related to the would-be Juno and La Galga assemblages. I hope to see this discussion developed more completely.
Baja, your input is always very welcome; I have always appreciated your patience with my questions when I drift into your areas of expertise.
I am sorry for any delay in addressing these very interesting questions; however, they are complex and many are unresolved. I must also occasionally haul my organ out to the corner and grind for a living.
Very Best Regards,
Lubby
