1821 James Monroe - Seizure of the French Apollo

James Monroe defended the seizure of a French merchant ship named Apollo in his 1821 State of the Union Address.   France argued that the vessel was outside the jurisdiction of the United States.  The incident with France seemed to have ruffled some feathers between Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams.
 
In September of 1820, the Treasury Department seized the Apollo, a French vessel that was docked on an inlet of the St. Marys river.  The captain of the Apollo entered the St. Marys river along the Florida/Georgia border and proceeded to the a remote location on the Spanish side where there was no custom house.   By docking on the Spanish side, the Apollo was able to evade all U.S. laws and all duties imposed on foreign goods coming into the United States.  When it became clear that the Apollo did this with the intent purpose of selling his goods not in Spanish Florida, but to the citizens of the United States in direct and palpable or transparent breach of our laws, Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin instructed the consular of Savannah Georgia to seize the Apollo.  This caused a bit of an international incident, with France complaining to our state department headed by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams that the Apollo was illegally seized. In a letter to Secretary Adams in 1822, Secretary Gallatin had to give a full account of his actions and his reasons, which seems to indicate that this caused some friction with the state department and may have been done without the State Department's explicit approval (see below).  Yet, in President Monroe's 1821 State of the Union address, he gave public support to the actions of the Treasury department.   Monroe argued that "every nation has a right to regulate its commercial system as it thinks fit and to enforce the collection of its revenue, provided it be done without an invasion of the rights of other powers.  And in this case, the Apollo had "indicated a fixed purpose to violate our revenue laws".   The President explained that the Apollo had no intention of pursuing a fair trade by transferring their goods through our custom house according to law, and re-shipping them through other vessels which would bring them into our ports lawfully.  Here is Monroe's account of the event from his Annual Address:

"As little cause has the Government of France to complain of the seizure of the Apollo and the removal of other vessels from the waters of the St. Marys. It will not be denied that every nation has a right to regulate its commercial system as it thinks fit and to enforce the collection of its revenue, provided it be done without an invasion of the rights of other powers. The violation of its revenue laws is an offense which all nations punish, the punishment of which gives no just cause of complaint to the power to which the offenders belong, provided it be extended to all equally.

In this case every circumstance which occurred indicated a fixed purpose to violate our revenue laws. Had the party intended to have pursued a fair trade he would have entered the port of some other power, landed his goods at the custom house according to law, and re-shipped and sent them in the vessel of such power, or of some other power which might lawfully bring them, free from such duties, to a port of the United States. But the conduct of the party in this case was altogether different. He entered the river St. Marys, the boundary line between the United States and Florida, and took his position on the Spanish side, on which in the whole extent of the river there was no town, no port or custom house, and scarcely any settlement. His purpose, therefore, was not to sell his goods to the inhabitants of Florida, but to citizens of the United States, in exchange for their productions, which could not be done without a direct and palpable breach of our laws. It is known that a regular systematic plan had been formed by certain persons for the violation of our revenue system, which made it the more necessary to check the proceeding in its commencement."

President Monroe then continued to argue that in the case of the Apollo, the United States acted lawfully and even in a friendly manner towards France.  He explained that these were very remote lands where Spain did not make any efforts to control.   There was no Spanish custom house anywhere near where the Apollo was docked, nor did the Apollo register with the Captain General of Cuba ever approve of the Apollo's application to enter Spanish waters.  The Captain General of Cuba was the administrative district of the Spanish Empire in South America and the Floridas.  Furthermore, it is very difficult to make a case for Spain having jurisdiction of these waters.  For many years, even before the provinces of Florida were ceded to the United Sates, Spain made no attempts to exert any control over the tribes of Indians and "every kind of adventurer" that made inroads in there.  And now that the Adams-Onis treaty was signed and Spain ceded Florida, the United States was "more at liberty to exercise authority to prevent so great a mischief".   Monroe, reminded  France that the United States had always acted in a friendly manner towards them, and in this case the United States did the same.  As soon as "all danger of further breach of our revenue laws ceased", the Apollo was released and any cases against her were dropped.  

"That the unsettled bank of a river so remote from the Spanish garrisons and population could give no protection to any party in such a practice is believed to be in strict accord with the law of nations. It would not have comported with a friendly policy in Spain herself to have established a custom house there, since it could have subserved no other purpose than to elude our revenue law. But the Government of Spain did not adopt that measure. On the contrary, it is understood that the Captain-General of Cuba, to whom an application to that effect was made by these adventurers, had not acceded to it.

The condition of those Provinces for many years before they were ceded to the United States need not now be dwelt on. Inhabited by different tribes of Indians and an inroad for every kind of adventurer, the jurisdiction of Spain may be said to have been almost exclusively confined to her garrisons. It certainly could not extend to places where she had no authority. The rules, therefore, applicable to settled countries governed by laws could not be deemed so to the deserts of Florida and to the occurrences there.

It merits attention also that the territory had been ceded to the United States by a treaty the ratification of which had not been refused, and which has since been performed. Under any circumstances, therefore, Spain became less responsible for such acts committed there, and the United States more at liberty to exercise authority to prevent so great a mischief. The conduct of this Government has in every instance been conciliatory and friendly to France. The construction of our revenue law in its application to the cases which have formed the ground of such serious complaint on her part and the order to the collector of St. Marys, in accord with it, were given two years before these cases occurred, and in reference to a breach which was attempted by the subjects of another power. The application, therefore, to the cases in question was inevitable. As soon as the treaty by which these Provinces were ceded to the United States was ratified, and all danger of further breach of our revenue laws ceased, an order was given for the release of the vessel which had been seized and for the dismission of the libel which had been instituted against her."

Secretary Albert Gallatin explains his Actions

In a letter to John Quincy Adams, Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin gives us a lot more detail about what happened.  In this letter he describes a disagreement over the Seizure between himself and Baron Pasquier an official in France.  France took the position that the United States improperly assumed that they had jurisdiction over the spot where the Apollo was located when it was seized based upon an improper interpretation of orders of the Treasury in May of 1818.  Based upon the understanding of the French government, the Apollo was not in waters under United States' jurisdiction and a complaint was made to the Secretary of State Adams that it was illegally seized.   Gallatin explained to Adams how he concluded that the Apollo was under U.S. jurisdiction.   Gallatin based his understanding on information received from Mr. Clarke the consular agent in Savannah.   Mr. Clarke had informed Secretary Galltin that the Apollo was at the "pretended port of St. Josephs" on the western side or Spanish side of the Bell's river which is an inlet of the ST. Marys river.  It was a good ways up the river away from the harbor of Fernandina on the Atlantic coast.  With this information, Galatin notified by letter to Pasquier that the Apollo was seized after being anchored from a number of days on the southern shore of St. Mary's river, half-way between the Spanish town of Fernandina and the American town of St. Mary's.   Gallatin admitted to Adams that perhaps he could have been more precise, but he had transcribed Mr. Clarke's information as best he could to Mr. Pasquier.   Based upon this, Gallatin believed that he established that the "pretended port of St. Josephs" was actually on an arm or inlet of St. Mary's river north of the town and fort of Fernandina.  Furthermore, Gallatin had also determined that the fort of Fernandina was in possession of the United States according to the Treasury of May, 1818 which stated that the United States had taken possession of all the waters of St. Mary's harbor including the spot where the Apollo was seized.

Gallatin wrote that the only thing ever in question was whether or not the Apollo was physically located at a spot within the jurisdiction of the United States.   What was never in question was that the Apollo had intentionally evaded U.S. revenue laws.  Based upon the order of the Treasury of 1981, the collector was instructed to enforce all revenue laws upon all vessels entering the river of St. Marys regardless of which side they anchor on.   It also declared that all vessels which arrive there after were to be considered to be within the United States and subjected to the revenue laws of the United states.   Gallatin explained that the collector did not initially attempt to collect duties from the Apollo because the Captain of the Apollo had intended to proceed further beyond the town of Fernandina and into the waters of the Spanish Florida.   The collector sent a letter to the Treasury Department to ask about this, and on September 9th the Treasury Department answered back with orders to seize the Apollo under recommendations from the Secretary of State in May of 1818.  Gallatin told Adams, that he naturally concluded that the original order from May was still in effect, and therefore he enforced it with the assumption that he had been given the power by the Secretary of State.   He hoped that the Secretary of State would find that there was no substantial disagreement between them.  Gallatin explained, that even if the United States conceded that the Apollo was not located in a spot under U.S. jurisdiction and was seized in violation of foreign territory and rights of France, he still believed it was justified based upon the injuries it did to the United States.   As precedence Gallatin cited a case in 1790 (the Nootka Sound affair) between Great Britain and Spain over the detainment of British vessels outside of Spain's jurisdiction where the amount of injury outweighed the lack of jurisdiction.


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29463
The Writings of Albert Gallatin, Volume 2 by Albert Gallatin (1879)  pgs 250 - 253
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captaincy_General_of_Cuba