Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-05-09
The Alta veIa Case.

we presume GnaL our readers are apprlSed
of the facts involved in the case. But we
recapitulate here the leading points:
Messrs. PATTERSON & MARGuIoNDo, q
Baltimore firm, took possession, by alleged
tight of discovery, of the island of Alta
Vela, barren and uninhabited islet about
sixteen miles distant from San Domingo,
n the West India waters. 1t was rich with
yuano deposits. They commenced opera
tions there under United States statute
passed for the protection and encourage
'ment of United States citizens who might
discover guano islands in any part of the
had ever exercised jurisdiction over the
island, or ownership over it, and it seems
that it was never known that it possessed
any value by reason of the guano deposit.
The Dominican Government. learning o:
the operations of the Baltimore firm there,
sent force to the island, destroyed the
works erected, tore down the American
flag, seized the agents of PATTERSON 6 MAR
oUIoNDo and threw them into prison,
claiming the island as a Dominican posses
sion. Afterward the property was leased
to New York company, which is now
driving lucrative business in removing
guano from the island. 1t is said to be
worth millions of dollars.
The Baltimore firm applied, through the
law firm OF BLACK, LAMONT & Co., to the
United States Government for redress, in-
sisting that forcible measures should be
adopted to reinstate them in the possession
of Alta Vela.
The President and Secretary SEWARD de.
clined to acquiesce in the demand made
and Eor reasons already given to the public
ex-Attorney General BLACK, one of the
gentlemen retained as counsel for the Pres
ident, declined to appear for him in the
present trial. Manager boutwell, endeav-
ored 70 create a prejudice against the Pres
ident's cause by reference to the absence
of Judge BLACK from the trial, assuming
that it was because of his conviction that
the President could not be defended. This
brought out the damaging explanation
from Mr.. NELsoN,tha four of the Impeach-
ment Managers sustained some relation to
this gigantic speculation, and that, after
the impeachment proceedings were COM
menced, they had signed the following let
ter, intended to influence the Presidents
action in the premises:
WASHINGTON, March 9, 1868.
Col. j. W. Shafer, Washington, d. c.:
DEAR SIR:-In answer to your question
relating to the validity of the claim of the
United States to the Jurisdiction over the
island of Alta Vela, upon considerable con-
sideration tof the subject, l am clearly OF
opinion that, under the claim of the United
States, its citizens have the exclusive right
to take guano there.
This is clearly indisputable, both by the
law of nations and our municipal law. ]
have never been able to understand why the
Executive did not long since assert the
rights of the Government and sustain the
rigntful claims of its citizens to the posses
sion OF the island in the most forcible man.
ner consistent with the dignity and honor
of the nation.
am, yours truly,
BENZ. F. BUTLER.
i concur in the opinion expressed above
by Gen. Butler. JOHN A. LOGAN.
And we concur:
j. A. Garfield, Thaddeus Stevens,
w. III. KOontZ, j. G. Blaine,
w. Moorhead, John A. Bingham.
This letter, dated March 9th, was deliv.
cred to the President on the 18th of March
The New York Tribune and others, in theil
effort to screen the Radical Managers from
censure in the matter, have boldly assumed
that the letter was written before the i'm
peachmeut proceedings were instituted
But, while the Tribune editorially has haG
the audacity to make this statement, anG
even to state that Judge BLACK hlmseli
''never saw the Alta Vela papers till aftel
he had Withdrawn from the Presidents
case" yet in a two column letter from its
own Washington correspondent, who gives
history OF the Alta Vela case, it convicts
itself of falsehood. That letter explicitly
shows that Judge BLACK earnestly sought
to persuade the President, before the i'm
peachment proceedings were commenced,
to comply with the demand OF the Balti-
more firm, and that he withdrew from
the defense of the President in conse.
quence of the Presidents refusal to
c)me to the relief of his client. 1t was
then that resort was had to the Impeach.
msnt Managers, who in the "name o.
the people" had arranged the President az
great criminal" Those Managers, in
the very crisis of the impeachment trial
holding great power, and being able to use
i5 If they pleased for the benefit as well as
Injury of the President, sought to infiu-
ence his judgment by the foregoing letter
Let it be remembered that the impeach-
ment resolutions were adopted February
24th, and the articles laid before the Senate
March I'd. The summons to appear was
served on the President March 7th. In thil
juncture, the prosecutors of the Presiden
-four of them-unite in urging upon hin
to favor claim which is pronounced on,
Of the greatest ''lobby swindles" ever urgec
upon the Government. The Col. SHAFFER
to whom the letter was addressed, wa
formerly Chief of Staff to Gen. BUTLER
and is one of the counsel for the Baltimore
claimants. Judge BLACK, on the 10th o
March, addressed letter to the President
withdrawing from the impeachment case
On the 22d he transmitted a second letter
explaining his action. This letter has beel
given to the public.
The conduct of the Managers in this affai
laid them open to the gravest suspicion
Mr.. BROOKS, in the House, at once intro
duced resolution of inquiry. A debate
angry, turbulent, and eisorderly in extrem
degree, ensued. To the disgrace of the Rad
icals, they voted down the resolution, thu
refusing to subject to investigation the con
duct of the Managers or to make any in
quiry into their relation to this giganti
"lobby swindle." The President and Sec
retary of State failed to perceive that it wa
their duty to send war vessel to Alta Vel
to dispossess those in occupation there, an
reinstate the Baltimoreans in possession Q
property yielding several millions pc
annum. His prosecutors, under certain in