Spain's Claim to Shipwrecks

[Salvor6]

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.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Salvor6]

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.

 

[Mackaydon]

I thought that treaty involved only territory (land) not sea entitlements.
I might soon learn otherwise if you are correct.
Don.......

 

[ropesfish]

Here's what I have found. Due to the late hour, someone else will have to read and interpret it.
The Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819

Adams-Onis Treaty 1819: English Transcript

Adams?Onís Treaty | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online

https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mgb02

Adams-Onis Treaty

 

[aquanut]

I saw no reference to shipwrecks.

 

[Mackaydon]

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....

 

[seekerGH]

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

 

[seekerGH]

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.

 

[Black Duck]

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,

 

[seekerGH]

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/sciencet...-Canaveral-filled-stolen-French-treasure.html

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

 

[aquanut]

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'

 

[Black Duck]

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

 

[Black Duck]

Pay attention please

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...

 

[seekerGH]

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.

 

[Black Duck]

How cares who Goold worked for

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.

 

[seekerGH]

The term embedded is very easy to determine, needing a method of excavation (which a blower is a means of excavation). Sorry, but it was obvious from the video that the cannon were embedded. I am merely observing what has been shown in the videos.

Lets assume one cannot identify the shipwreck. Who do the cannon belong to? If they were from a Fort, whos Fort? It is pretty obvious who the column belongs to. There is a copy of the column in a park, so an actual column would have historical significance.

Good luck.

 

[ivan salis]

normal territorial claims of the time in 1820's included 3 miles of coasal waters and items embedded in the sea bottom --like say oyster beds or shipwrecks

 

[seekerGH]

Actually, shipwrecks are notably absent from territorial claims.

It was not until the ASA in 1988 that this begins to rear its ugly head.

 

[ivan salis]

embedded items (say like oyster beds stuck on the sea floor) -- also means shipwrecks --and anything within "territorial waters" the 3 mile limit ..is thought of belonging to the nation / country that claims those waters -- which back then --was thought of as basic common sense ..anything in "your" territorial waters or sea bed area --belongs to you --so you could tell "foreign ships" not to fish or oyster in "your area" as those resources within those waters were for use by your people only

 

[huntsman53]

While GME is currently suffering from the latest antics of the State of Florida, I write this to all Treasure Salvor Companies and those with interests in (hold Stocks) and/or their' businesses rely on the Treasure/Shipwreck salvaging industry as a whole and am posting it in several threads.

All of these entities need to come together and form an association to fight the State of Florida and legislation aimed at depriving Treasure Salvors/Shipwreck Salvagers from earning a living and paying their' stockholders their' due. If this cannot be achieved through the U.S. Attorney General and some of the Courts, then start Petitions and gain the signatures and support to file for a Congressional Hearing. The Congressional Hearing should be mainly to investigate (an Investigative Congressional Hearing) the wrongdoings of the State of Florida on behalf of Treasure Salvors/Shipwreck Salvagers but also to investigate the unfairness of treaties, legislation, laws and policies that have been enacted and signed in the last century, some of which were clearly written to circumvent the fair rights of Treasure Salvors/Shipwreck Salvagers to make a living and pay their' stockholders by receiving their' share of the fair value of items salvaged or their' share of the items of which they can later sell. It is well past the time for everyone with interests in these matters to quit bickering amongst themselves, quit fighting over areas/ships to salvage, quit complaining and talking big stuff and go ahead and do the big stuff!


Frank