Posted on 05/09/2008 6:41:53 AM PDT by Joiseydude
MADRID, Spain — Spain formally laid claim Thursday to a shipwreck that yielded a US$500 million treasure, saying it has proof the vessel was Spanish.
Officials demanded the return of the booty recovered last year by a U.S. deep-sea exploration firm, saying the 19th-century shipwreck at the heart of the dispute is the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes — a Spanish warship sunk by the British navy southwest of Portugal in 1804 with more than 200 people on board.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I think you misunderstood my post, or I didn’t make myself clear — I said that Spain has a clear legal case here under the letter of an international treaty of which the US is a signatory.
The location of the wreck is irrelevant to the treaty. I’ve been diving on German U-boats off the Carolina coast & we are cautioned before every dive not to disturb the wreck or take anything off it. You can do some federal prison time for it.
As for the Spanish Monarch? I kinda threw that out there for discussion. It’s not an unbroken line as Spain has been a Republic and, while the current occupant of the Spanish throne is a Boubon, the Bourbons have seen their line interrupted twice. The King of Spain then was ruler of a lot of Central & South America then. Those countries are now independent and on equal legal footing — though perhaps not in the case of a military vessel.
Ergo, it was engaging in commerce, just as a civilian ship carrying gold would have been.
One slight catch with that claim... The modern descendants of the Incas could only claim gold which originated from Peru, not Mexico (that would be the Aztecs)...
the infowarrior
My wife suggests COVEY but I am not sure, there doesn't seem to be appropriate malice there. That is a very good question...OK I give. What do you call a lawyer gone bad? (Hint: It starts with an S and ends with a r).
A few years ago, a Spanish wreck was discovered off Virginia’s Eastern Shore. The case went to court and the court ruled in Spain’s favor.
A “mendacity” of lawyers.
A “mammon” of lawyers.
An “avarice” of lawyers.
Decisive Times for Underwater Archaeology: Who Owns the Watery Past?
The Spanish question
In July a Federal Appeals court in the State of Virginia stripped rights to the wrecks of two Spanish frigates from the American company that discovered them within Virginia State waters, and awarded them to Spain.
La Galga sank off the coast of Virginia's Eastern Shore islands in 1750, and the Juno, purportedly laden with gold and coins, went down a few miles further south in 1802. In 1996, Sea Hunt, a Virginia salvage company, discovered the wrecks and was awarded a permit to excavate them by the State of Virginia which had assumed ownership of the ships under the 1987 Abandoned Shipwreck Act, a federal law giving States jurisdiction over abandoned shipwrecks in coastal waters. In exchange, Sea Hunt was to provide the State of Virginia with a selection of artefacts pulled from the sea and 25% of any profits made by the sale of the discovered booty.
In 1998 a district court granted Sea Hunt exclusive salvage rights. In response, Spain sued for ownership and possession of the vessels, contending that it had never abandoned the ships. The claim was the first made by Spain for sovereignty over sunken Spanish vessels. In the past, Spain has watched in silence as commercial salvors profited from the recovery of sunken Spanish ships.
In 1985 American Mel Fisher discovered the wreck of the Nuestra Se�ora de Atocha, a galleon that sank off the Florida Keys in 1622. Mr Fisher recovered an estimated $400 million in gold, silver, and jewels. Spain did not lay claim to the hoard.
The Spanish claim to Juno and La Galga was supported by Britain and by the American Interior, State, and Justice departments who argued that allowing private commercial companies to claim foreign ships would open the door to similar treatment of American vessels in international waters.
In awarding sovereignty over the two wrecks back to Spain, the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals called the ruling "essential to protecting United States shipwrecks and military grave sites."
It remains unclear whether Ben Benson, president of Sea Hunt, Inc., who has spent an estimated $2 million on preliminary recovery work and legal fees will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
The ruling sets a strong precedent for nations with long maritime traditions who are becoming increasingly aware that advances in technology will make it necessary for them to assert ownership of their sunken vessels or risk losing these ships to commercial salvors. It also shows that grants awarded on a "finders-keepers" basis may be contested by other countries, as well as by other would-be salvors.
Here's a link to the case.Admiralty Law Guide
Senator. :-) And the answer to mine was “conspiracy”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.