Welcome guest, is this your first visit?
Member
Discoveries
 
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 67
Like Tree70Likes

Thread: Spains Claim to Shipwrecks

« Prev Thread | Next Thread »
  1. #1
    Charter Member
    us
    Pirate of the Martires

    Feb 2005
    Pinellas Park, Florida
    Aquapulse, J.W. Fisher Proton 3, Pulse Star II, AK-47
    3,097
    1015 times
    Shipwrecks

    Spain's Claim to Shipwrecks

    Spain signed a treaty relinquishing all claims to their shipwrecks prior to 1750. I would appreciate any links to verification of this treaty. I know there is a post about this on Tnet but I can't find it.
    Honest Samuel likes this.

  2. #2
    Charter Member
    us
    Pirate of the Martires

    Feb 2005
    Pinellas Park, Florida
    Aquapulse, J.W. Fisher Proton 3, Pulse Star II, AK-47
    3,097
    1015 times
    Shipwrecks
    The 1819 Adams-Onis treaty between Spain and the US sells the territory of Florida to the US for $5 million and gives up all claims to Spanish shipwrecks in Florida waters prior to 1750. Correct me if I am wrong.

  3. #3
    Charter Member
    us
    Scotland, Aye !!

    Oct 2004
    N. San Diego area (Pic of my two best 'finds')
    Minelab Explorer
    16,421
    6190 times
    Research and History
    Honorable Mentions (2)
    I thought that treaty involved only territory (land) not sea entitlements.
    I might soon learn otherwise if you are correct.
    Don.......
    AARC likes this.

  4. #4
    us
    The continuing adventures of Ropesfish -

    Jun 2007
    Sebastian, Florida
    A sharp eye, a Fisher 1280X and a finely tuned shrimp fork.
    716
    908 times
    Shipwrecks
    Bill Black
    Search and Salvage "C-31"
    Sebastian, FL
    ropesfish@gmail.com

    Subcontractor on the 1715 Plate Fleet
    “You can either be a victim of the world or an adventurer in search of treasure. It all depends on how you view your life.”
    Paulo Coelho, Eleven Minutes

  5. #5
    Charter Member
    Aquanut

    Jul 2005
    Ft Myers, Florida
    Fisher CZ21, Tesoro Tiger Shark
    1,942
    1072 times
    I saw no reference to shipwrecks.

  6. #6
    Charter Member
    us
    Scotland, Aye !!

    Oct 2004
    N. San Diego area (Pic of my two best 'finds')
    Minelab Explorer
    16,421
    6190 times
    Research and History
    Honorable Mentions (2)
    Personally, I don't believe the ownership or salvage of Spanish shipwrecks was on anyone's mind at the time of that treaty; just my opinion.
    Don....

  7. #7

    Jan 2016
    555
    387 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    This concept was tried before with the Juno and La Galga. 4th Circuit Court ruled for Spain, and US Supreme Court refused the case.

    Under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), a state acquires title to all abandoned vessels embedded within its submerged lands. In defining the term abandoned, the ASA merely provides that abandonment occurs the moment an owner relinquishes its rights to a sunken vessel. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, Virginia and Sea Hunt argued that the ASA's definition of abandonment should permit a court to imply abandonment where a sovereign fails to declare its ownership in a timely manner. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that, as under admiralty law, a sovereign owner appearing before a court to assert its ownership to a shipwreck retains title to the vessel unless an express and affirmative declaration of abandonment is proven.

    The Fourth Circuit applied the express abandonment standard to the 1763 Treaty and determined that Spain had not relinquished its rights to LA GALGA. First, although Article XX of the treaty contains "sweeping language of Spain's cession," it never explicitly refers to vessels, warships, shipwrecks, or frigates. Since the treaty contains a detailed catalogue of "non-territorial state property" to be conveyed, but does not include shipwrecks, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Spain had not expressly abandoned its title to the vessels. Likewise, Article XX expressly limits the cession to Spanish property located "on the continent of North America." The specificity of this territorial limit convinced the court that the shipwrecks were not part of the cession since they were located on the seabed.

    Next, the court noted that Article XX grants the King of Spain an unlimited amount of time to retrieve his personal property; the other provisions of the treaty specifically set time limits on similar actions. Therefore, absent an affirmative act of abandonment, Spain could retrieve the vessels at any time.

    Finally, both Spain and Great Britain agreed that the vessels were not included under Article XX. When the parties to a treaty agree to the interpretation of its provisions, the courts must defer to the parties' understanding unless there is "extraordinarily strong contrary evidence." The court was bound by Spain and Great Britain's interpretation since Virginia and Sea Hunt were unable to rebut.

    In concluding that Spain retained its right to both LA GALGA and JUNO, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that anything short of an affirmative act of abandonment will undermine a state's or private salvage company's claim to a sovereign shipwreck. This decision stresses that, as under customary international law, sovereign shipwrecks should be protected from unauthorized interference.

    It was also noted that the Treaty of 1903 between the US and Spain, (after the explosion of the USS Maine), protected the Nations rights to their warships when sunk in foreign waters.

    The Adams Onis Treaty
    Last edited by seekerGH; May 15, 2017 at 09:29 PM.
    when I bring you breakfast in bed, a simple thank you is all I want...not all of this "how did you get in my house" nonsense...

  8. #8

    Jan 2016
    555
    387 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    The Adams* Onís Treaty sometimes referred to as The Florida Treaty was signed in Washington on February 22, 1819 and ratified by Spain October 24, 1820 and entered into force February 22, 1821. It terminated April 14,1903 by a treaty of July 3, 1902.

    Treaty of 1903

    ARTICLE X
    In cases of shipwreck, damages at sea, or forced putting in, each party shall afford to the vessels of the other, whether belonging to the State or to individuals, the same assistance and protection and the same immunities which would have been granted to its own vessels in similar cases.

    This was cited in the Juno/La Galga case. The treaty superseded the Adams/Onis Treaty.

    Note it states belonging to the State or to individuals. This is very interesting.

    I would appear that all of these agreements have been used by the Courts, and the Appellate Court ruling can (and has) been cited in other cases. The ASA was not until 1987. I really dont see any need to revisit, or spend any money claiming that Spain has abandoned or the US purchased the shipwrecks as part of a land deal.
    Last edited by seekerGH; May 15, 2017 at 09:37 PM.
    eyemustdigtreasure likes this.
    when I bring you breakfast in bed, a simple thank you is all I want...not all of this "how did you get in my house" nonsense...

  9. #9
    us
    Dec 2008
    Dominican Republic - Tampa, Florida
    Aqua Pulse and Pluse 8 JW Fishers, Garret Sea hunter II
    236
    243 times
    Quote Originally Posted by seekerGH View Post
    The Adams* Onís Treaty sometimes referred to as The Florida Treaty was signed in Washington on February 22, 1819 and ratified by Spain October 24, 1820 and entered into force February 22, 1821. It terminated April 14,1903 by a treaty of July 3, 1902.

    Treaty of 1903

    ARTICLE X
    In cases of shipwreck, damages at sea, or forced putting in, each party shall afford to the vessels of the other, whether belonging to the State or to individuals, the same assistance and protection and the same immunities which would have been granted to its own vessels in similar cases.

    This was cited in the Juno/La Galga case. The treaty superseded the Adams/Onis Treaty.

    Note it states belonging to the State or to individuals. This is very interesting.

    I would appear that all of these agreements have been used by the Courts, and the Appellate Court ruling can (and has) been cited in other cases. The ASA was not until 1987. I really dont see any need to revisit, or spend any money claiming that Spain has abandoned or the US purchased the shipwrecks as part of a land deal.
    Seeker good info, but as it says the shipwreck material must be in-bedded to belong to a state on one hand, and it must be proven what shipwreck it is, where its from and that it is military,

  10. #10

    Jan 2016
    555
    387 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    Seeker good info, but as it says the shipwreck material must be in-bedded to belong to a state on one hand, and it must be proven what shipwreck it is, where its from and that it is military,
    Dont stop at the first line of the Code.
    43 U.S. Code Chapter 39 - ABANDONED SHIPWRECKS

    (a) the term “embedded” means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof;

    43 U.S. Code § 2105 - Rights of ownership

    (a) United States title
    The United States asserts title to any abandoned shipwreck that is—
    (1) embedded in submerged lands of a State;
    (2) embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on submerged lands of a State; or
    (3) on submerged lands of a State and is included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

    Note that section(2) states OR and simply refers to submerged lands, which this appears to be.

    (c) Transfer of title to States
    The title of the United States to any abandoned shipwreck asserted under subsection (a) of this section is transferred to the State in or on whose submerged lands the shipwreck is located.


    Looking at the Code, there are 3 criteria, embedded is but one, coraline encrusted is another, OR in submerged lands. It would be very difficult to prove a cannon on the bottom is not embedded, nor encrusted, and really, really difficult to prove it is not submerged.

    These days, it is also unlikely that a shipwreck item cannot be proven, especially cannon. If that argument was valid, every shipwreck salvage team would claim unidentified. As we have seen with Odyssey, that doesnt work and gets you Contempt of Court charges, penalties, and confiscation of the recovery.

    In addition, without provenance, the artifacts are worth little more than scrap, so if you want value, you need identification, thus the catch22. You have already stated that the stone was removed from the fort, and that would have been by the Spanish. BUT, there is documentation that monuments went back to France. The cannon are the key, that marking on them certainly are not AC/DC props! The video shows enough information to id the cannon for certain.

    Not embedded?!?!

    Anything else you forgot to share?

    "It was first believed these items were from Ribault's two 'lost ships' that were destroyed in 1565 by a storm, Prichett told LiveScience.
    However, after reviewing records, Prichett and his team discovered that the bronze cannons and marble monument were not aboard Ribault's ships, but were station at an early French Huguenot colony in Fort Caroline, which is now Jacksonville, Florida.

    After digging even further, the team learned the four items were stolen during a Spanish raid in 1565.
    Pritchett believes the pieces were headed to Havana, Cuba when the three Spanish ships were met by a storm out at sea that sank the vessels
    ."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-treasure.html

    With Goold on point, be it France or Spain, you need to make the call.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ddf6c068d6d92d202bac7e4ff0cb4994.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	55.0 KB 
ID:	1452159  
    Last edited by seekerGH; May 17, 2017 at 02:09 AM.
    when I bring you breakfast in bed, a simple thank you is all I want...not all of this "how did you get in my house" nonsense...

  11. #11
    Charter Member
    Aquanut

    Jul 2005
    Ft Myers, Florida
    Fisher CZ21, Tesoro Tiger Shark
    1,942
    1072 times
    Don't you get tired of statements like this.... "Centuries later, marine archaeologists have stumbled across the shipwreck remains off the coast of Cape Canaveral,"

    Read more: 16th centurySpanish shipwrecks found off Cape Canaveral filled with stolen French treasure | Daily Mail Online
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook'
    ropesfish, AARC and Bum Luck like this.

  12. #12
    us
    Dec 2008
    Dominican Republic - Tampa, Florida
    Aqua Pulse and Pluse 8 JW Fishers, Garret Sea hunter II
    236
    243 times
    Quote Originally Posted by seekerGH View Post
    Dont stop at the first line of the Code.
    43 U.S. Code Chapter 39 - ABANDONED SHIPWRECKS

    (a) the term “embedded” means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof;

    43 U.S. Code § 2105 - Rights of ownership

    (a) United States title
    The United States asserts title to any abandoned shipwreck that is—
    (1) embedded in submerged lands of a State;
    (2) embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on submerged lands of a State; or
    (3) on submerged lands of a State and is included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

    Note that section(2) states OR and simply refers to submerged lands, which this appears to be.

    (c) Transfer of title to States
    The title of the United States to any abandoned shipwreck asserted under subsection (a) of this section is transferred to the State in or on whose submerged lands the shipwreck is located.


    Looking at the Code, there are 3 criteria, embedded is but one, coraline encrusted is another, OR in submerged lands. It would be very difficult to prove a cannon on the bottom is not embedded, nor encrusted, and really, really difficult to prove it is not submerged.

    These days, it is also unlikely that a shipwreck item cannot be proven, especially cannon. If that argument was valid, every shipwreck salvage team would claim unidentified. As we have seen with Odyssey, that doesnt work and gets you Contempt of Court charges, penalties, and confiscation of the recovery.

    In addition, without provenance, the artifacts are worth little more than scrap, so if you want value, you need identification, thus the catch22. You have already stated that the stone was removed from the fort, and that would have been by the Spanish. BUT, there is documentation that monuments went back to France. The cannon are the key, that marking on them certainly are not AC/DC props! The video shows enough information to id the cannon for certain.

    Not embedded?!?!

    Anything else you forgot to share?

    "It was first believed these items were from Ribault's two 'lost ships' that were destroyed in 1565 by a storm, Prichett told LiveScience.
    However, after reviewing records, Prichett and his team discovered that the bronze cannons and marble monument were not aboard Ribault's ships, but were station at an early French Huguenot colony in Fort Caroline, which is now Jacksonville, Florida.

    After digging even further, the team learned the four items were stolen during a Spanish raid in 1565.
    Pritchett believes the pieces were headed to Havana, Cuba when the three Spanish ships were met by a storm out at sea that sank the vessels
    ."

    16th centurySpanish shipwrecks found off Cape Canaveral filled with stolen French treasure | Daily Mail Online

    With Goold on point, be it France or Spain, you need to make the call.
    Seeker first off,

    I did not say I thought it was Trinite ever, I was miss quoted and told the reporter so, second only 3 monuments were taken back to France in 1562,
    The one that was removed from the area of Fort Caroline (the one GME found) could have been on any ship ( do you know what ship it was ?) neither dose France or Florida.

    On embedded you missed the part about on submerged lands of a State and is included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

    It is not registered in the National Register and to do so now would be after the fact. You do get that ?

    On the cannon again what is your point, explain how the cannon ID this wreck again ?, and remember none of these cannon or other items that GME found were on the manifest of the Trinite

    And this is not the
    Odyssey case nor is it even close to this, that wreck was identifiable, pay attention now "identifiable"
    GME do-sent go after military ships

  13. #13
    us
    Dec 2008
    Dominican Republic - Tampa, Florida
    Aqua Pulse and Pluse 8 JW Fishers, Garret Sea hunter II
    236
    243 times

    Pay attention please

    [QUOTE=Black Duck;5405453]Seeker first off,

    I did not say I thought it was Trinite ever, I was miss quoted and told the reporter so, second only 3 monuments were taken back to France in 1562,
    The one that was removed from the area of Fort Caroline (the one GME found) could have been on any ship ( do you know what ship it was ?) neither dose France or Florida.

    If it dose not require the use of a mechanical devise then it is not required !!!! you get that right "required"

    On embedded you missed the part about on submerged lands of a State and is included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

    It is not registered in the National Register and to do so now would be after the fact. You do get that ?

    On the cannon again what is your point, explain how the cannon ID this wreck again ?, and remember none of these cannon or other items that GME discoverd were on the manifest of the Trinite

    And this is not the
    Odyssey case nor is it even close to this, that wreck was identifiable, pay attention now "identifiable"
    GME do-sent go after military ships...

  14. #14

    Jan 2016
    555
    387 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

    I think that monument qualifies. The French cannon, easy to identify, no?

    You were claiming that the artifacts were not embedded, yet the video clearly shows they are.

    You told the reporter it was Spanish, now you claim you were misquoted?

    It does not have to be military, and as you are aware Goold has worked with Spain and other nations worldwide.
    Last edited by seekerGH; May 17, 2017 at 10:35 PM.
    when I bring you breakfast in bed, a simple thank you is all I want...not all of this "how did you get in my house" nonsense...

  15. #15
    us
    Dec 2008
    Dominican Republic - Tampa, Florida
    Aqua Pulse and Pluse 8 JW Fishers, Garret Sea hunter II
    236
    243 times

    How cares who Goold worked for

    Quote Originally Posted by seekerGH View Post
    or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

    I think that monument qualifies. The French cannon, easy to identify, no?

    You were claiming that the artifacts were not embedded, yet the video clearly shows they are.

    You told the reporter it was Spanish, now you claim you were misquoted?

    It does not have to be military, and as you are aware Goold has worked with Spain and other nations worldwide.
    Monument qualifies for what, that it was not on an Identifiable ship (yes) no one can id these scatter fields.

    Yes the cannon at least 3 of them are french, so what, these same cannon of like were again at fort caroline when the fort was taken over.

    You need the definition of embeded !, Again they are not embedded by the definition !

    I never told the reporter anything was Spanish, what I said was they could be, The Spanish took the Fort over, so they could be Spanish, French, Dutch, or other unidentifiable merchant ships, either way again there is no proof of what they are.

    You must present the court the Facts not this fiction you keep making up.

    There is no more discussion here with you I have proven enough for now.

    I have a good repetation and do not lie "ever" you may not like what I say but no one legit can same i have ever lied.

 

 
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Remove Ads

Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Oct 19, 2015, 05:52 PM
  2. Spain abandoned all shipwrecks before 1648
    By Rodrigo Bazo in forum Shipwrecks
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Aug 25, 2015, 10:44 PM
  3. Will Spain claim this also?
    By piratediver in forum Shipwrecks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jul 31, 2009, 09:17 PM
  4. Odyssey Rises After Spain Withdraws a Shipwreck Treasure Claim
    By sanmateo in forum Treasure In The News!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Apr 04, 2008, 09:18 AM
  5. Shipwrecks in Spain
    By maximushisp in forum Shipwrecks
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Feb 05, 2005, 07:42 PM
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.3.0