War of 1812 booty embroiled in legal battle

[MiddenMonster]

This article illustrates several aspects to the onwership debates. The British are claiming that they own the ship and everything on it. It looks like the Canadians are wanting to get their hooks in it, as well. Sovereign Exploration Associates International Inc. is disupting the claim, and I would bet that the U.S. government will soon get in the middle of the debate since the loot came from the White House. As an American, I would prefer the U.S. getting ownership over the British, but since the wreck is in international waters I hope that Sovereign Exploration Associates International Inc. wins this battle. They're the ones putting in all the labor, risk and speculative capital. Too bad employing the 3 S's (sift, shovel and shut up) is difficult in these circumstances. One day the private sector will be able to buy and operate submarines that are large enough to do this beneath the prying eyes of government busybodies and revenuers. And when that day comes it's whole new ball game. It will almost be worth it to pop out an eye, chop off part of your leg, buy a parrot and become a pirate for the new age.

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NA...4&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112101662670
White House loot anchors fight over sunken bounty
By Alison Auld
The Canadian Press
HALIFAX (Sep 22, 2006)

A stash of loot possibly stolen from the White House in the early 1800s is at the centre of an international dispute over who owns the bounty that now rests in a watery grave off the Nova Scotia coast.

A U.S. exploration company has laid claim to the bounty on what it suspects is the HMS Fantome, a navy brig that was loaded with goods British and Canadian soldiers made off with after ransacking the White House and Capitol buildings during the War of 1812.

The company, Sovereign Exploration Associates International Inc., has conducted dives on the site off Prospect, N.S., and planned to recover some of the thousands of coins and other historic artifacts it has seen on the ocean floor.

But the pursuit of the plunder was stalled recently when the British government claimed that it owns the famed naval vessel that went down in a fierce storm in November 1814.

"These two particular warships are under international law, considered property of the British government," Elizabeth Whiting, a spokesperson with the British High Commission, said yesterday in reference to the Fantome and HMS Tilbury, another wreck off Cape Breton.

"Anything on the ship would be British."

The British are arguing that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives them title to the Royal Navy warships and that the Nova Scotia government cannot hand out licences to companies hoping to dive on the sites.

Curtis Sprouse of Sovereign said his company is rejecting the claim that international law gives ownership to the British.

The Massachusetts company had applied for a special permit that would allow it to recover material from the site of the Fantome shipwreck, but it was rejected by the province when the British filed their objection.

The province issues the permits and licences under the Treasure Trove Act, a unique piece of legislation that allows people to dive on and recover material taken from historic shipwrecks.

Wendy Barnable, a spokesperson with the provincial Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, said the company's bid to obtain a permit was turned down because of Britain's opposition to the project.

Barnable said it's now up to Sovereign Exploration to consult with British officials to resolve the matter, adding that she wasn't aware of this happening in the province before.

Barnable said the company still holds a licence that allows it to dive on the site, but that it can't recover anything from it.

According to a preliminary report by Le Chameau Explorations Ltd., the company which holds the permits to explore the site, divers have already recovered cannon and musket shot, copper buttons bearing the Royal Navy symbol, pottery, tools, and ships' nails and bolts.

Divers also recovered copper sheathing, embossed with a distinctive English marking that indicates military or Crown property.

Under provincial law, a company can retain items that are deemed to be treasures, but must pay a 10 per cent royalty on them. Any artifacts recovered from a site must be handed over to the province.

Sovereign Exploration hasn't confirmed whether the vessel is the Fantome, but said recovered material fits the time frame and there is debris from several other vessels in the area.

The Fantome was leading a convoy of ships back to Halifax after British and Canadian troops routed their enemy, sending them fleeing while the invading army looted and then torched the president's house, the capital and all other public buildings.

The substantial haul was loaded on to a handful of boats that set sail for Halifax, a busy British garrison at the time.

The Fantome ran into a vicious storm on Nov. 24, 1814, and was thought to have gone down after accidentally heading into a shallow shoal.

John Wesley Chisholm, an independent filmmaker, said "once you leave the shore, and especially once you go underwater, the ocean is like the wild west of the 21st century."

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[cptbil]

This should illustrate the reason a seasoned TH'er would/should keep "mum" 8) and DOESN'T Broadcast, his/thier "finds"

 

[Gypsy Heart]

Great story . Thanks for posting this.

 

[MiddenMonster]

This should illustrate the reason a seasoned TH'er would/should keep "mum" 8) and DOESN'T Broadcast, his/thier "finds"

At least for the finds that could fully fund your retirement and bring hordes of revenuers and friends you never knew you had to your door. Same holds true for winning the lottery. If you ever win big, don't tell anyone about that either, and register the win as a corporation or trust instead of your real name.

 

[Skrimpy]

Morons. First, if it was US treasure, it should be returned (which it won't) Second, These guys should not have said "boo" to anyone, scarfed the loot, and then said something. At least then the only one that could lay claim to it would be the ones that it was taken from. Now, because they had to go and run their mouths, the King has come knocking for his booty he stole 200 years ago.

 

[MiddenMonster]

Morons. First, if it was US treasure, it should be returned (which it won't) Second, These guys should not have said "boo" to anyone, scarfed the loot, and then said something. At least then the only one that could lay claim to it would be the ones that it was taken from. Now, because they had to go and run their mouths, the King has come knocking for his booty he stole 200 years ago.

I agree with most of that, but there are some practical problems that are almost surmountable. One is the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", which somehow is able to cover private citizens in international waters. I don't accept the proposition that a convention or treaty can apply to individuals when outside the territorial limits of their country and in international waters. What if you were born a U.S. citizen, but live 24/7/365 on a boat that spends most of it's time in international waters? Can the U.S. government also prohibit you from gambling in Monaco, eating whale meat in Norway or smoking hash in Amsterdam? But the governments of the world have the guns, the courts and the enforcement infrastructure in place to compel just about anything.

Second is that mounting a salvage operation at sea isn't something that can be efficiently done covertly, especially with snooping government ships and boats skimming about. That day will come, but it's still a long way off. Where we might disagree is over the disposition of the loot. I'm as patriotic as they get, but my belief is that if the treasure hunters risk life, limb, capital and labor to find and retrieve it, they should be the owners of the find. The U.S. government should be proud to buy it back at market price and grateful for the opportunity to do so. Imagine if these treasure hunters found it and provided proof to the world that they did, but then laughed and said that the location would be a secret they take to their graves--"Eat mud, suckers!" No law against that, but it would be far worse outcome than the U.S. government paying the hard coin to get it back.

Finally, if it is turned over to a government, then I agree it should be the government of the good `ol USofA and not the British. They lost the war fair and square, so they don't have any rightful claim to the spoils. If they want to buy their ship back, then fine. There is a market mechanism they can employ to get it back. It's called outbidding everyone else if the rightful owners don't offer them an exclusive option to buy.

 

[Zobex]

Morons. First, if it was US treasure, it should be returned (which it won't) Second, These guys should not have said "boo" to anyone, scarfed the loot, and then said something. At least then the only one that could lay claim to it would be the ones that it was taken from. Now, because they had to go and run their mouths, the King has come knocking for his booty he stole 200 years ago.

I agree with most of that, but there are some practical problems that are almost surmountable. One is the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", which somehow is able to cover private citizens in international waters. I don't accept the proposition that a convention or treaty can apply to individuals when outside the territorial limits of their country and in international waters. What if you were born a U.S. citizen, but live 24/7/365 on a boat that spends most of it's time in international waters? Can the U.S. government also prohibit you from gambling in Monaco, eating whale meat in Norway or smoking hash in Amsterdam? But the governments of the world have the guns, the courts and the enforcement infrastructure in place to compel just about anything.

Second is that mounting a salvage operation at sea isn't something that can be efficiently done covertly, especially with snooping government ships and boats skimming about. That day will come, but it's still a long way off. Where we might disagree is over the disposition of the loot. I'm as patriotic as they get, but my belief is that if the treasure hunters risk life, limb, capital and labor to find and retrieve it, they should be the owners of the find. The U.S. government should be proud to buy it back at market price and grateful for the opportunity to do so. Imagine if these treasure hunters found it and provided proof to the world that they did, but then laughed and said that the location would be a secret they take to their graves--"Eat mud, suckers!" No law against that, but it would be far worse outcome than the U.S. government paying the hard coin to get it back.

Finally, if it is turned over to a government, then I agree it should be the government of the good `ol USofA and not the British. They lost the war fair and square, so they don't have any rightful claim to the spoils. If they want to buy their ship back, then fine. There is a market mechanism they can employ to get it back. It's called outbidding everyone else if the rightful owners don't offer them an exclusive option to buy.

A funny proposition in this subject was kicked back and forth between myself an a lawyer from the world court some years back. The UN conventions only apply to member states of the UN if the member states choose to subject them selves to that set of rules (both the USA and Great Britten do that). But it would not apply to a person classified to as a "free man" or sovereign man. That being one who has disavowed any citizenship of any government. They do exist and only travel under a convenience passport issued by an accompanying government.

Next point was, if the property is the property of a sovereign nation (government) and the property is outside of the Continental jurisdiction of that sovereign government, then that property may not only be a valued asset but also a liability asset. Lets say a sunken warship that is leaking radioactivity. That where in brings up the curious position, is a sunken treasure war ship an "attractive nuisance". That makes it a liability and in the case of personal injury, the claimant of sovereignty is legally and financially liable. Even in the case where in e.g. the USG sinks an old warship for the purposes of attracting fish and making a sport diving site.

So does leaving millions of dollars of gold on the bottom of open international water while claiming it is the property of the sovereign nation, is that act of reckless abandonment and the creation of an "attractive nuisance".

Next this point has not been addressed. The 40 year rule of war treasure. Since the valuables in this case were war booty where in the British Government in an act of war looted the United States Government, the loot falls under the same rules as war booty where in Japan in an act of war looted Korea and subsequently the ship carrying that war loot was sunk off of Luzon in a storm. While the Japanese government does not claim that war booty to be it's own lawfull property and can no longer due to the application of the 40 year rule, there is no other lawfull interpretation to that matter of the 1812 British war treasure.

Unfortunately the court systems are as crooked as the Presidential appointments. File the lawsuit in Nova Scotia. Enact the recovery under a Nova Scotia flag ship, when there is an attempted interdiction by the US or British ship or personnel, engage in armed combat and call it an act of international piracy where in you used self defence.

Watch the fur fly.

Zobex

 

[MiddenMonster]

A funny proposition in this subject was kicked back and forth between myself an a lawyer from the world court some years back. The UN conventions only apply to member states of the UN if the member states choose to subject them selves to that set of rules (both the USA and Great Britten do that). But it would not apply to a person classified to as a "free man" or sovereign man. That being one who has disavowed any citizenship of any government. They do exist and only travel under a convenience passport issued by an accompanying government.

That makes sense in a legal context, but I wouldn't be inclined to renounce my U.S. citizenship to gain the right to treasurehunt in international waters. I'm too far inland for that convention to apply to any treasure hunting I would do, but if I ever got in that situation I think I would either try to find a way to salvage it covertly, or resolve any ownership claims prior to any salvage operation. Of course, the latter would mean that I would have to put my trust in the honesty of one or more governments. There was another incident recently where a group of private U.S. citizens wanted to return the ashes of a WWII soldier to a sunken ship that the Japanese sunk during the war. The soldier survived the sinking, but died recently and only wanted to be buried with his comrades. They crew was just about to return the ashes to the submerged ship, but was stopped by the U.S. government, under threat of penalty because there is a U.S. law about disturbing what they called a "gravesite". The U.S. considered adding the ashes to the ship a violation of that law, and the crew attempting to return the ashes was running out of time and had spent considerable money to mount the operation.

Next point was, if the property is the property of a sovereign nation (government) and the property is outside of the Continental jurisdiction of that sovereign government, then that property may not only be a valued asset but also a liability asset. Lets say a sunken warship that is leaking radioactivity.

I must admit I hadn't thought of that angle. But to remain consistent to my position I would say that the treasurehunters should accept all liability in addition to the potential return on their efforts. If the British warship collapsed and killed the treasure hunters, that would be their problem, and not that of the British government.

Next this point has not been addressed. The 40 year rule of war treasure. Since the valuables in this case were war booty where in the British Government in an act of war looted the United States Government, the loot falls under the same rules as war booty where in Japan in an act of war looted Korea and subsequently the ship carrying that war loot was sunk off of Luzon in a storm. While the Japanese government does not claim that war booty to be it's own lawfull property and can no longer due to the application of the 40 year rule, there is no other lawfull interpretation to that matter of the 1812 British war treasure.

That sounds like an acceptable compromist. But again, you have to trust in the honesty of governments.

Unfortunately the court systems are as crooked as the Presidential appointments. File the lawsuit in Nova Scotia. Enact the recovery under a Nova Scotia flag ship, when there is an attempted interdiction by the US or British ship or personnel, engage in armed combat and call it an act of international piracy where in you used self defence.

Watch the fur fly.

I hope the crew does fight this, and wins. If they do, maybe it will be used as a precedent for future salvage operations. I know the finders of the Titanic had a heck of a time with disputes once it became clear they were bringing up the real artifacts. This cat fight should prove interesting to watch.

 

[Zobex]

I remember that event about dropping a brass urn filled with ashes on the sunken ship site. I guess you can dump a lot of bilge oil, an old tire, two coke bottles and an junk outboard motor on top of the site but not a brass urn holding the ashes of a former crew member of that ship.

I also see that it is a federal US crime to disturb a sunken US Sub off of Leyte but OK to cut up a Japanese Destroyer off of Sarangani bay and sell it to China at $0.20 / pound. Now I wonder what would happen if you were to cut up a Jap freighter that was sunk with a payload of US Military POW's ?? Or if you just wanted to recover the two Mosler safes the freighter had on in the hold.

In the islands we regularly have to remove the skeletons of the dead Japanese from tunnels as you dig. In only one case did we find dead American solders. It was in a mass grave pit some 1 hour outside of Davao. There were 5 dismembered skeletons in the pit, just above them was a few broken rice bowls and a very rusted folding US military shovel. An early design that was used in 1940-42. Looked as though they were ceremoniously dismembered and dropped into the pit by body type and the 5 skulls were on the top of the hole. Always check the teeth. Japs and Filipinos had poor teeth. Low rank Jap military rarely had good dental work. Two of these skulls had good dental work including a bridge and no Jap or Filipino would have that. There was no identifying objects in the pit other than than. The skeletons were reburied in a District Cemetery outside of Davao. I paid for that.

Zobex

 

[shellback]

I know it doesnt matter what I think on a matter like this but still my voice will say this, I dont think anyone has the right to this claim but the ones who found it and are diving to get it up, why in the world is the general public even allowing this to be an issue? I think everyone who cares like I feel about this should come forward and say "NO" stay out of it and besides it was found in international waters so I say leave em alone, go find your own damb treasure you greedy non working politicians they all are carpetbaggers freeloaders and liers and cheats. oops sorry I didnt mean to go off like that but as you can see I have a bone to rub with our crappy leaders.

 

[Skrimpy]

You got that #%$@^&! straight man. I say the private company goes and takes the treasure anyway. It would take the British and Canadian government a few days to get there and by the time they did...the company should be out of there with the loot. If the US government wants it back then fine...either buy it back or give them a finders fee...otherwise let the Kings Army come again. We will just kick their @$^ again.

 

[gold fish]

What is wrong with these people, the stuff is on the bottom of the ocean for 200 years, and all of a sudden they decide they need it I say BACK OFF, you fat pompas rich barstards!!!! Go find your own flunking gold!!!! Why is it that whenever the little man gets a chance, these bottom-sucking leeches have to STEAL it!!!!

 

[gord]

I note that you all refer to the treasure as 'loot'. In fact, it was forced reparation for the burning of Dover Mills by 800 cowardly Yanks who attacked the village while all the men were away repelling the invasion and occupying Fort Detroit.
Gord

 

[gold fish]

I don't care where it came from, lost is lost!!! If I dig up a $20 gold piece, I'm not turning it in to the local "lost and found".

 

[MiddenMonster]

I note that you all refer to the treasure as 'loot'. In fact, it was forced reparation for the burning of Dover Mills by 800 cowardly Yanks who attacked the village while all the men were away repelling the invasion and occupying Fort Detroit.

I guess it depends on which side of history you prefer to reference. But from the American side of history the treasure was "looted" when the White House was sacked and burned by Brits, who treated the newly declared Americans--both soldier and civilian very poorly during the Revolutionary War a couple of decades earlier. The Romans could just as easily use your words to describe the treasures taken from the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, as could the Visigoths when they sacked Rome in 410 AD and the Union army when they burned farms and cities in the South during the War of Norther Agression. As the saying goes, history is written by the victors. As I stated earlier, I believe that the finders should have primary claim to the treasure/loot. However, if any government should be able to lay claim to it, the American government should have that right.