The Juno

On October 1, 1802, the Juno, a 34 gun frigate of the Spanish Navy under the command of Don Juan Ignacio Bustillo, departed San Juan, Puerto Rico, for Cádiz, Spain, along with another ship called the Anfitrite. She was carrying the Third Battalion of the African Regiment and other passengers and their valuables estimated at $100,000. The ships reached the vicinity of Bermuda with little difficulty but here they encountered continuous squalls and heavy seas. The two ships became separated. Juno continued north in search of better weather.

On the night of the 22nd, there was a stiff wind from the northeast and large waves. The topsail split and the ship remained unable to continue sailing for half an hour until the mizzen mast was cut. The wind was so furious that it wrenched both the main mast and the fore top sail, throwing the main topmast against the handrail. The caulker came up from the hold and announced that there was six feet of water in the hold and increasing. All four pumps were put into action and the sailors and soldiers took turns pumping while the others rested.

On October 24, at latitude 37°N, longitude 67°W⁶, 450 miles southeast from Assateague Island, they fell in with the American schooner Favorite, Captain Pourland, from Madeira to Boston. Captain Bustillo requested Captain Pourland to stay by him and assist in getting the frigate to the nearest American land. At this time, he put on board the Favorite his second in command, Don Francisco Clemente y Miro. Also transferred was the lieutenant of the African regiment, Don Jose Maria Zorilla; the cadet Don Antonio Malagon, and four grenadiers with provisions that might be needed in an emergency. A plan of signals was decided upon for use day and night to indicate if the water in the ship was rising or diminishing. Plans were also made if it was deemed necessary to abandon ship. Captain Bustillo believed he could save his ship and make it to a port in the United States. He encouraged his men and sailed on with a fresh southwesterly wind, working the pumps without a break.

On the 25th of October, the weather cleared and the captain was able to investigate the origin of the leak and attempted to stem the rate of increase. They found that that the problem was in the boatswain's storeroom/quarters. Captain Bustillo ordered all of the artillery from the mainmast to the bow and her third and fourth anchors to be thrown overboard. The storerooms were cleared and supplies moved back to the stern. They tried everything to stop the leak in the boatswain's area but none proved to be successful. They tried caulking, sealing off the area from the inside and applying sails from the outside. The water level continued to rise inside the ship.

The Favorite continued on with the Juno. On the 27^th, the Favorite was informed that the Juno had lost her rudder during the night and with the rising water in the ship, the pumps were no longer able to overcome the leaks. The men bailed water by hand in the bow and the stern, and a steering oar was set up to replace the rudder. So they continued and at midday, the ship was at latitude 38° N, longitude 69° 56’ W⁷, 280 miles east of the coast of Assateague Island, and 250 miles southeast of Boston. 

At ten o'clock that evening, the wind changed to the northwest and there was such a violent squall that the gaff peak parted, leaving the ship under bare poles. Juno managed to avoid the sea's blows for a distance of 10 to 11 miles pushed by the northwest wind. The frigate lost her mainmast, the fore topsail mast, and the yard which had been used to replace the tiller. The ship sent signals to the Favorite for help as she was no longer able to hold out but the schooner was only able to come to leeward as close as a hundred yards. This was close enough to hear the anguished cries for help and watch the ship roll as if nearly full of water. Overcome by the wind and convinced that she would capsize if she attempted to come around, the Favorite remained incapable of maneuvering for the rest of the night.

At 9 am, Juno’s mainmast went over the side and her foremast fell alternatively from side to side. Every effort was made to afford her assistance but in vain. A fog occasioned Captain Pourland to lose sight of her. In half an hour it cleared away but the ship was no more to be seen. Convinced that Juno was lost with 413 souls, the Favorite continued her route inland and dropped anchor in the port of Boston on November 1. Here, Captain Pourland gave his account to the Boston Columbian Centinal and Lt. Clemente travelled to Washington, DC where he gave his account to Spanish officials at the embassy there on November 13^th. He was weak from his ordeal and complained of the poor food provided him on the schooner and the necessity to drink strong liquor to overcome the cold. All accounts of Juno’s loss are based on the testimony of these two people.

 
The alleged “discovery” of the Juno

The discovery of the Juno was claimed by two treasure hunting firms, Quicksilver International, in 1988, and Sea Hunt Inc., in 1998, in two different locations 44 miles apart. Both locations were hundreds of miles from where the Juno disappeared October 28, 1802. The record reveals that both discoveries were based on wishful thinking rather than archaeological and historical data.

Quicksilver International⁸

In 1987, a fishing trawler dragged up a bronze bell that appeared to be Spanish and rudder post with two bronze gudgeons 40 miles off the coast of Assateague Island. Quicksilver International in Norfolk, Virginia was contacted and they began a systematic search of the area with side scan sonar. In 1988, Quicksilver filed an in rem admiralty action in the Federal District Court in Norfolk to an unidentified shipwreck they had located in that area.Quicksilver began raising money through stock sales but did little with their shipwreck discovery. They later told the court and the newspapers that they believed they had found the Juno. The company floundered until another company called Sea Hunt, Inc. claimed that they had found the Juno just off the south end of Assateague Island and that their research said that she was carrying 700,000⁹ pieces of eight when she sank. Quicksilver was reenergized with that information. A diver was then lost¹⁰ in their bid to retrieve objects from their still unidentified hulk. Quicksilver faded into oblivion, but only after they made appearances in the Sea Hunt case.   

Sea Hunt, Inc.

In 1997, a treasure hunter named Ben Benson and his company, Sea Hunt, Inc, obtained permits from the Commonwealth of Virginia to explore for and recover items from shipwrecks in two six square mile areas off Assateague Island. The permits did not name the vessels La Galga and Juno but Benson openly told the newspapers that these were the ships he sought. Benson was convinced he could locate the wrecks because he believed they had already been found by others. He was led to the site of an unidentified wreck near the present Maryland-Virginia border by another treasure hunter and was told it was La Galga.¹¹ This site was already known to others including the Commonwealth of Virginia since 1980.¹²

In 1989, a fisherman dragged up an anchor off the south end of Assateague which had a pewter plate attached to it with the letter “J” engraved on it. Benson learned of this and that some Spanish coins had been found on the beach opposite this site predating 1802. He did not know that Spanish coins were common currency in the U.S. until 1857.¹³ He did not know about the number of wrecks located in this area, one of which was also called the Juno that wrecked in 1817.¹⁴ He did know about the previous allegation of discovery by Quicksilver and the published accounts of Juno’s loss putting her most likely hundreds of miles away.

On March 11, 1998, Sea Hunt, Inc. filed claims to two unidentified shipwrecks in the federal court in Norfolk, Virginia. They gave the general location as six square miles specified by the same coordinates that was used in their permit with Virginia. On the day of filing, their attorney said that the three artifacts brought into court may or may not be from La Galga or Juno, only that their client believed them to be.¹⁵ No evidence was offered as foundation for that belief that those artifacts had to have come from a Spanish ship.

On May 13, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia filed its own verified claim to the two wrecks. Their basis for the claim was that all shipwrecks located in the three mile contiguous zone along Virginia’s coast were property of the Commonwealth by virtue of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987.¹⁶ In their claim and in all subsequent representations, Virginia always maintained that the vessels were “unidentified.” Virginia offered nothing to the court on the historical background of the ships or any reason to believe that they were in fact located within the coordinates specified by Sea Hunt or anywhere in or on Virginia’s submerged land. Their claim was predicated on the accuracy of Sea Hunt’s claim.   

On May 18, 1998, Spain entered the litigation represented by the U. S. Justice Department.¹⁷

In July, Virginia’s Governor, James S. Gilmore, III, wrote to the Spanish ambassador in Washington advising them that their interest in the unidentified wrecks “seems premature” since there were no artifacts recovered linking the unidentified wreckage to Juno or La Galga.¹⁸  

Spain was told by the court to get their own lawyer and that the U.S. Justice Department could not represent them. The U.S. was granted amicus status and remained before the court. Spain finally submitted its verified claim on December 22, 1998.¹⁹ This claim stated that to the best of Spain’s knowledge, information, and belief, that La Galga and Juno were the subject of the in rem litigation and were located within the coordinates offered by Sea Hunt.

The Court advised counsel for Sea Hunt and Quicksilver that both were making claims to the Juno. The Court was assured by each that they were two separate and distinct wrecks. Quicksilver and Sea Hunt readily admitted that one of them might be right, or they both could be wrong.²⁰ Counsel for Spain indicated that they believed that it was Sea Hunt that had found the Juno.²¹ The basis for this conclusion was that pictures of the anchor on the Quicksilver site revealed a chain attached to it. Spain said that the unidentified wreck post dated the Juno. They offered no affirmative information on why the Sea Hunt wreck had to be the Juno. In later testimony, Spain would allege that Sea Hunt had not found the Juno. Not offered in court but printed in the Virginian-Pilot was Quicksilver’s statement about the anchor that had been found off of the south end of Assateague in 1989:

“The anchor that has received much attention has two major flaws: First, the wooden crossbar is charred and partially missing due to burning. The Juno had no fire on board. Captain Leon Rose stated that the anchor was in its present condition when he dredged it up. Second, the anchor size does not match the ship's specifications that we found in the Naval Museum in Madrid.

Ben Benson has located a wreck close to shore, of which there are many. However, the research is very clear. What he found is not the Juno.”²²

And so the confusion began. Oral testimony and attorney arguments demonstrate that point:

Court transcript September 15, 1998²³

Page 63. The Court said: "I'm not sure that there is anything in this file that would indicate that everybody agrees that the two ships that the plaintiffs were given salvage permits for the two vessels Juno and La Galga...” And in response to the U. S. Justice Department the Court said at p. 64 , “All you have to do is come into court and say Judge, we are not sure that these are the right ships. How about letting us put a diver down there to find out, and certainly I would agree that you could do that."

The response of the U.S. Justice Department at p. 64: "That's an option that has never crossed our minds Your Honor."

P. 65. U. S. Justice Department: “My first answer to you is if Sea Hunt with its resources has not been able to identify them, I don’t think sending down one U.S. Diver is going to either.”

The Court at p. 65: "But Sea Hunt has never guaranteed that these are the two ships. You are, in effect, trying to guarantee that they are the two ships, and I'm not satisfied that the Court is going to give Spain the yea or nay on salvaging these vessels when we don't really know what they are.”

P 67. The Court: “... the burden is upon the United States I would think to establish that we are really talking about Spanish warships..." 

P. 77. Frederick Fisher for the Commonwealth of Virginia: “The claim is premature because they have not identified what vessels are there. The permits are not limited to the Spanish vessels, but cover that particular area.”

P. 159. Ben Benson, president of Sea Hunt, Inc.: “…another guy named John Armahein (sic) (this author) claimed to have found it also in the ‘80’s in a different location. So I tried to contact each one of those people and to try to talk with them and see what kind of data they had.”

After having been being led to the site by Alpha Quest, Benson said he located the wreck after 400 hours of survey work with a magnetometer. This author was not contacted by Benson but Benson did have this author’s research report on the location named in 1983. Benson ignored the findings about the Maryland-Virginia boundary line documented by the federal government and the wreck’s location documented in the report.

December 22, 1998 Spain filed its verified claim²⁴

They merely referred to the fact that La Galga and the Juno were “asserted to be the subject of this in rem litigation.” The strength of their claim was no greater than the unproven assertions made by Sea Hunt.

April 1, 1999, Transcript of the Proceedings²⁵

Page 8. Anthony Troy for Sea Hunt: "We do not at this time have sufficient evidence to declare that we have found the JUNO. What artifacts we have found are not inconsistent with the JUNO, but we have nothing that suggests that we can claim the JUNO."

Page 66. Jim Goold for Spain: "Embeddedness is only a doctrine that addresses where a property is abandoned, whether it belongs to the finder or the landowner. Our position, of course is that these ships have not been abandoned, and it also appears to be the case that nobody knows where the Juno is and whether it’s embedded or not, Your Honor.”

P. 83. David Bederman for Sea Hunt: “All parties agree that Juno and La Galga are located within three miles of shore of the Commonwealth of Virginia in very shallow water.”²⁶

Page 99. The court: “Mr. Cook of Alpha, whatever it was, has claimed or made the statement that he doesn’t think that the vessel that you and Sea Hunt are referring to is actually the JUNO, and the Quicksilver people, I thought, today said the same thing. Can I assume from both parties here to this case that you all are satisfied that I should rule upon this matter on the agreement of counsel that the vessel is the JUNO?”

P. 100. Jim Goold for Spain: “Yes. We believe that the court can rule, affirm Spain’s ownership of the JUNO regardless of which place it happens to be.”²⁶

Page 107. Jim Goold for Spain; “And at the same time Sea Hunt, with all of the modern technology that’s available, comes before the court and tells you they don’t know if they’ve found it or not either”

The Decision

On April 27, 1999, the district court awarded La Galga to the Commonwealth of Virginia thus giving salvage authority to Sea hunt by virtue of its permits with Virginia, and the Juno was awarded to Spain. The court said, preliminary to its ruling and affirming its jurisdiction and authority to render any decision at all that: “This matter is a dispute over the status of two shipwrecked vessels believed to be the remains of the Spanish vessels JUNO and LA GALGA, which were sunk in 1802 and 1750, respectively. Plaintiff Sea Hunt, Inc (“Sea Hunt”), a maritime salvage company based in the Eastern Shore of Virginia, has located the shipwrecked vessels near the coast of Assateague Island …”  As for La Galga, “LA GALGA then lay undisturbed for almost 250 years, until the current salvage attempts by Sea Hunt.” And for the Juno, “…the location of the wreck was not discovered until recent efforts by Sea Hunt.” The court noted however that Quicksilver claimed it was in a different location, but the court documented resolution of that issue simply by saying that “Counsel for Spain indicated that Spain believed that Sea Hunt, and not Quicksilver, had found the actual JUNO.” So the court considered Spain to be the authority on the location of the wreck, not Sea Hunt. The Court said that it relied on the affidavit dated December 22, 1998, of David Beltran Catala, Counsel for Judicial Affairs at Spain’s embassy in Washington. Within that affidavit were many historical documents from Spanish archives. They provided the testimony of Lt. Clemente of the Juno but it was noted that a page of that testimony could not be located. That page described the last day of the Juno before she disappeared. A Spanish naval historian named Cesáreo Fernández Duro apparently had the information from that page in 1867 when he published Naufragios de la Armada Española. It is from this work that we know that the Juno’s last recorded position, taken less than 24 hours before she disappeared in a sinking condition, was 280 miles from where the court was told that she sank. Unfortunately, Duro’s work was not introduced as evidence. This book is available at a number of Spanish Archives. Spain had stated that the last recorded position was on October 24^th when the Juno met up with the Favorite. That position was obviously in error as it placed the Juno 18 miles inland from the ocean front at Chesapeake, Virginia.

May 26, 1999. Supplemental Brief of the Kingdom of Spain on the Issue of Salvage²⁷

Page 8. Spain said: “Sea Hunt’s filings belie any claim that its salvage services have been successful. In fact, Sea Hunt has frankly acknowledged in various public documents that it does not even know for certain where the JUNO is.”

Page 14, under Conclusions referring to the Juno, Spain said: “Second, Sea Hunt achieved no success in even locating, much less salvaging, the wreck.”

Attached Affidavit of David Beltran Catala

Par. 10 “Based on information contained in Sea Hunt’s filings in this Court and the attached exhibits prepared by Sea Hunt as reports of its activities it is evident that Sea Hunt has provided no credible information identifying the actual site of the Juno.”

Par 11. “Records show that the last position reported for Juno was latitude 36° 44’N and longitude 76° 16’W on October 24, 1802, three or four days before she sank, that she spent her last four days in severe storm conditions, and that on her final day there was a harsh wind blowing from the North West, which would have been driving her away from the coast of America.”²⁸

Par. 13. “If the Juno were in an identifiable location, reports of sighting of wreckage or victims would be expected.”

Par. 14. “Quoting Sea Hunt’s December 15, 1998 report to the Commonwealth of Virginia the report, ‘confirms that Sea Hunt has not located the JUNO.’”

June 15, 1999 Supplemental Reply Brief of the Kingdom of Spain on the Issue of Salvage²⁹

Page 11. “Sea Hunt then fabricates an $83 million value for the mythical treasure – based on a single stray coin for which no provenience is given…This court should dismiss Sea Hunt’s salvage claim for want of jurisdiction.” 

June 15, 1999 Reply Brief of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the Salvage Award Issue.³⁰

Page 1. “The Commonwealth does not know the location of the JUNO wreckage site. Spain claims that Sea Hunt has not found the site…Until such time as this court has established a discrete location of the JUNO wreckage site, recovery of historic artifacts under the Virginia Marine Resources Commission Permits No. 97-0498 and No. 97-0163 (the permits) should be allowed to continue freely in the areas covered by the permits.”

July 21, 2000, The Court of Appeals Rules

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its decision.³¹ It reversed the award of La Galga giving her to Spain and affirmed the award of the Juno to Spain. In the very first paragraph the court acknowledged the jurisdictional prerequisites necessary for them to make any interpretations of Spanish treaties and case law:  

           This in rem admiralty action concerns the sovereign rights of the
              Kingdom of Spain to two of its Royal Naval vessels, LA GALGA and
              JUNO, which were lost off the shores of present-day Virginia in 1750
              and 1802 respectively

Other descriptions of discovery were made affirming the Court’s jurisdiction:

“LA GALGA remained undisturbed until the recent salvage efforts by Sea
Hunt.”

And for the Juno, “but the location of the wreck was not discovered until Sea Hunt's recent efforts.”

“Sea Hunt claims that its efforts have resulted in finding the remains of LA GALGA and
JUNO.”

“It is undisputed that LA GALGA and JUNO are within Virginia's submerged lands.”

The Court of Appeals did not say that that these two shipwrecks were merely “discovered” by agreement of the parties.³² The Court made no reservation about the Spanish shipwrecks not being within the jurisdiction of the court. If it had, it would have nullified all findings of law made subsequent to its claim that it had jurisdiction over Spanish property. Because it was an in rem action and a suit against the vessels, the court had to affirmatively declare that Spanish property was in fact, not in theory, arrested and brought into court before it could make any ruling on Spain’s claims.

In 1983, there was a federal court ruling where, in spite of the fact that no shipwrecks had been found, and the defendant shipwrecks were fabricated by a con man, the make-believe ships were declared property of the State of Maryland. This case called Subaqueous Exploration and Archaeology, Ltd. was reviewed by a legal scholar who declared this decision was merely an advisory opinion to the Attorney General of Maryland. He said that it was elementary that a federal court has no power to render such an opinion. In the Sea Hunt case the “shipwrecks” weren’t fraudulent but nonetheless weren’t properly before the court. The court did not acquire jurisdiction over two Spanish shipwrecks because they were never discovered or arrested. In rem jurisdiction was never acquired over Spanish shipwrecks. Jim Goold for Spain, even acknowledged that they would be Spain’s if they were ever found. Using the Subaqueous case as a close parallel, it seems that the Sea Hunt case is merely an advisory opinion to the Kingdom of Spain. If the court reached judgment without jurisdiction the judgment could be considered void and subject to collateral attack.

After the award of La Galga and Juno to Spain, arguments continued over who would get the artifacts. The decision made by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals apparently did not settle the argument over the location of the vessels. 

Post Judgment   

Nov 17, 2000. Response of the Commonwealth of Virginia to the Motion of the Kingdom of Spain to Terminate Appointment of Substitute Custodian and to Enforce Judgment.³³

Virginia argued that Spain had the burden of proof in determining which artifacts were attributable to La Galga and Juno. Virginia also said that Sea Hunt was prohibited from turning over to Spain any artifacts that came from any other shipwreck. Virginia suggested an item by item analysis with the burden of proof to be put on Spain.

Page 6. “Not only has Spain never agreed that the recovered artifacts came from their ships, Spain has never admitted that Sea Hunt even found LA GALGA and/or JUNO.”

November 27, 2000. Kingdom of Spain Reply In Support of Motion to Terminate Appointment of Substitute Custodian To Enforce Judgment and For Other Relief³⁴

Page 9. Spain submitted an exhibit (#5) prepared by Sea Hunt listing 27 shipwrecks that were known to be in the area. In that list was La Galga and the Juno. There were only five dating from 1802 back to 1750. Spain suggested to the court that the artifacts must have come from La Galga and the Juno since Sea Hunt only listed two Spanish wrecks The implication was that this list was somehow all inclusive. There are many other wrecks documented as being lost in this area, any of which could have had Spanish coinage aboard.    

Sea Hunt and the Commonwealth of Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court. That appeal was denied February 20, 2001.

March 2, 2001 Transcript of Proceedings³⁵

Jim Goold for Spain expressed his growing frustration with Virginia’s logical approach to the issue of artifact identity. P.16. He said “[If] We have to go through the burden and expense of that, and I would certainly want to reserve the right to pursue sanctions, Your Honor, arising from what we consider to be a course of –and I’ll say it without emotion—outrageous bad faith.” When the court asked him sanctions for what, he said “for filing briefs with this court, for example, that there is no evidence that the artifacts came from the JUNO or LA GALGA, when the president of Sea Hunt testified before Your Honor that he had located the vessels and was recovering artifacts from them.”  

 p. 33. Frederick Fisher for the Commonwealth of Virginia, "...we want to have control of our underwater land when we get through with this, except for the area in which the La Galga and the Juno lie. But the weakness of that exception is, nobody knows where that is."

P. 45 Anthony Troy for Sea Hunt, "...we are not in a position to confirm for in rem purposes that the ships are in fact those of the Juno and or the La Galga."

March 16, 2001. Transcript of Proceedings³⁶

P. Anthony Troy for Sea Hunt: “The record is clear that the parties and the Court relied on supposition, conjecture, and speculation when referring to unidentified vessels as the Juno and La Galga.”

Frederick Fisher for the Commonwealth of Virginia:

 P. 17 “…The problem with the two vessels, we don’t know where theyare. We have some locations which may or may not be the vessels…Spain would be entitled to the Juno and La Galga if they were ever found.”

P. 18. The weakness of that is that nobody knows if this is the site of the JUNO or LA GALGA…This is the site by Act of the King of Spain.”

p. 33: The Court: "The court is faced with a problem that, in reading through this very thick file, that there is really no -- been any statement made by Sea Hunt positively this stuff came from Juno or these artifacts came from Juno or La Galga."

Had the Correct Historical and Location Data Been Presented to the Court

La Galga     

1. The court would have found that La Galga was abandoned in 1750. Captain Daniel Huony, an agent for King Ferdinand VI, told the sheriff of neighboring Worcester County that the “Owner of the Land” owned the ship.³⁷ After his return to Spain in March 1751, Captain Huony stood before the investigating tribunal and testified that the decision was made not to burn the wreck but to let the English have it so that their passage out of there was a safe one. He traded the safety of his crew for the wreck. This decision was prompted no doubt because there were a number of Englishmen held prisoner illegally until they escaped from the wreck. Huony was absolved of any wrong doing by the Marques de la Victoria, the Director of the Navy.³⁸ Virginia would have been granted title to the wreck if the court wanted to believe that the wreck lie in the ocean. Otherwise it would have gone to the federal government. 

2. The Court would have found that Spain abandoned La Galga by virtue of the 1763 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Kingdoms of Spain, France, Portugal, and Great Britain. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals³⁹ upheld that Article XX of the Treaty specifically ceded “all that Spain possesses on the continent of North America” to Great Britain. That included everything “in the most ample manner and form.” that depended upon the land which the Catholick King had up until that point. Great Britain, by diplomatic note, said “[T]he intention behind Article XX was to transfer sovereignty over the territories mentioned in that Article, and not to deal with, or other-wise affect, the quite separate issue of the ownership of shipwrecks on the waters adjacent to these or other territories in North America." Spain cannot argue that this site is a military gravesite as the record is clear that no one died onboard the wreck. The entire language of the decision demonstrates that the court was operating with wrong information. It assumed, incorrectly, that the shipwreck was in the ocean.  

 3. Any interpretation of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act is invalid as that act assumes that the shipwreck is lying in coastal or navigable waters. 

 4. The court would have been required to review the 1943 deed conveying the land today known as the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge that encompasses the wreck. That deed says “It further appearing to the Court that the United States of America, the petitioner herein, has filed in this case in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Acts of Congress approved August 1, 1888 (25 Stat. 357, USC sec 257); February 18, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222) and February 26, 1931 (46 Stat. 1421; 40 U.S.C  288a), a Declaration of Taking signed by the Honorable Oscar L. Chapman, Assistant Secretary of the Interior has been duly authorized and empowered to acquire for the United States of America the lands described in the petition, and that the said Declaration of Taking shows that the said lands, interests and estates therein are to be taken by the United States of America for public use…It is further ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that the said United States of America, petitioner herein, shall have the right and power to take possession of the lands condemned, and all fixtures, buildings and improvements thereon, or any part thereof, as of this date, and all persons in possession and control of any part or any of the said lands, buildings and improvements thereon, or any part thereof, shall immediately upon said date surrender the same to the United States of America…”⁴⁰  

5. The Court would have found that the United States had a colorable claim to La Galga since it is buried in federal lands and that the United States would be an indispensable party to the Sea Hunt action and that no valid decision could be reached without the United States being a party to the suit. The U. S. Government (NOAA) has listed since 1983 the likely location for La Galga in its AWOIS database as being within the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/AWOISreg5.html Record # 3245. (This link has changed twice in past two years. If you can't find it contact me.) This information was not disclosed to Spain in the Sea Hunt case.

      6. The court could have dismissed the action against La Galga as it was not in navigable waters and not subject to the

           court’s special admiralty jurisdiction.

The Juno

When the court found that the Juno was reported to be 280 miles from Assateague in a sinking condition the day before she disappeared Spain would have been asked, “how could the Juno get anywhere near Assateague Island?” That question still begs an answer. 

Today

The precedent found in the Sea Hunt case has become a great threat to the historic preservation efforts of our coastal states because Spain can now, on the flimsiest of evidence, proclaim that a Spanish ship is present in an area under study by American archaeologists. This could be done with the discovery of one Spanish piece of eight, a coin that was the predecessor of our own dollar and used extensively as legal tender in this country until 1857. They could argue that if there is any doubt to ownership the project must be halted. Two unidentified shipwrecks, rightfully the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia by virtue of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, are now off limits to their legal owner. The maritime history of Virginia has been compromised. Virginia, however, refuses to acknowledge in their official inventory of archaeological sites recorded at their Department of Historic Resources that these two ships were found.⁴¹ In direct contradiction to Virginia’s assessment of the artifacts recovered by Sea Hunt, the National Park Service signed a loan agreement with Spain to have these artifacts displayed at the new visitor center planned at the Assateague Island National Seashore.⁴² Their web site makes no reservation that La Galga and Juno may not have been found: “The NPS is honored to care for these objects on behalf of Spain, and to make the objects available for scientific study and public appreciation.”

Spain has claimed that the Juno is a military gravesite that deserves to be recognized. It hasn’t. After eight years, Spain has yet to pay these wreck sites a visit. For the 413 souls lost on the Juno hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic there may never be any closure.

The record of the confusion and lack of proof found in the Sea Hunt case has been ignored. If the artifacts are ever displayed by the National Park Service let’s hope that they will be properly labeled: BEWARE! NOBODY KNOWS WHAT SHIPWRECK THESE CAME FROM.

Sources

1.   Captain Huony of La Galga said he was on the border in Virginia. October 13, 1750. Report of the events of the frigate La Galga from her departure from Havana to her loss off the coast of Virginia to the Marques de Ensenada. Archivo General de Simancas, Secretaría de Marina 15 – 1. Expediente 184. f. 599 – 600. His belief that he was in Virginia remained until November when he was informed of the survey. Archives of Maryland. Volume 28, Proceedings of the Council, pp 493-4

2.   Archives of Maryland. Volume 28, Proceedings of the Council, pp 481-2

3.   Surveyor Book 6, page 84, Accomack County Courthouse, Accomack County, VA

4.   Plat Book #6, pp17-18 and Deed Book #168, p. 380, Accomack County Courthouse, Accomack, VA.  The Virginia portion of Assateague was first patented in 1687. The patent said that this portion of Assateague contained 3,500 acres at the time. Today that number is nearly 10,000 acres. In a letter dated September 29, 1750 from Thomas Lee, Acting Governor of Virginia, to the Duke of Bedford the boundary with Maryland was described as ending about latitude 38°. Maps produced after 1750 and into the 19^th century depicted the boundary line as latitude 38°.

5.   Archives of Maryland. Volume 28, Proceedings of the Council, pp 493-4. The Peninsula Enterprise, Accomack, Virginia, December 6, 1883.

6.   This position was stated in the Columbian Centinal November 3, 1802. See #28 below.

7.   Cesáreo Fernandez Duro gave this position in Naufragios de la Armada Española. It was taken from the testimony of Lt. Clemente of the Juno. Click here for the path of the Juno. See also #28 below.

8.   Quicksilver International, Inc v. The Unidentified, wrecked and abandoned Sailing Vessel No. 88-618-N filed September 13, 1988. Since then Quicksilver always asserted that they had found the Juno, In August of 2000, they stated “we do not acknowledge that Sea Hunt has found the Juno, or any other wreck for that matter…” The Virginian-Pilot August 13, 2000.

9.   The South Carolina Gazette, November 13, 1802, said $700,000. The Boston Columbian Centinal of November 3^rd said $100,000. The $700,000 appears to be a typo.

10.  The Virginian-Pilot. May 22, 1998.

11. Court testimony, September 19, 1998, pp. 15-16. The attorney for Alpha Quest Corporation said that Richard Cook had shown Benson the location of a wreck he believed was La Galga.

12. Letter from Commonwealth of Virginia to Sea Bay Salvors, March 30, 1982 documented that Alan Riebe applied for a permit for this location on November 24, 1980. In 1983, an archaeological team was sent to the site and reported they were unsuccessful in locating La Galga but noted a wreck at this location. In 1989, Alpha Quest, with an exploration permit granted by Virginia, claimed that this was La Galga. In 1994, An assessment of Virginia’s Underwater Cultural Resources Virginia Department of Historic Resources Survey and Planning Report Series No. 3 exhibited a map of this area with a wreck symbol. It was described as a vessel dated 1700-1899. But the narrative related to La Galga classified it as a site that has been neither located nor positively identified in state survey files.

13. Spanish coins http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=011/llsl011.db&recNum=184

14. Brig Juno, to New York went to pieces on Chincoteague Monday or Tuesday before April 15, 1817, Norfolk and Portsmouth Herald.

15. Statements by Peter Hess, attorney for Sea Hunt, p. 5,Transcript of Proceedings, March 11, 1998.

16. Docket Entry #16.

17. Docket Entry #18.

18. Washington Post, July 7, 1998.

19. Docket Entry #80.

20. Transcript of Proceedings, p.8, April 1, 1999, Anthony Troy for Sea Hunt. Docket Entry #133

21. Transcript of Proceedings, p. 9, April 1, 1999, Jim Goold for Spain. Docket Entry #133.

22. The Virginian-Pilot, Sunday, September 28, 1997, Letters to the Editor from Glenn H. Rogers, Chairman of Quicksilver International. Not mentioned here was Lt. Clemente’s account found in Naufragios de la Armada Española. See #28 below.

23. Docket Entry #74.

24. Docket Entry #80. Sea Hunt filed a motion to strike the verified claim of Spain on grounds Spain failed to comply with Supplemental Rule c(6) and with Local Rule (e)(3). Says Spain failed to verify claim of ownership either under oath or by solemn affirmation in accordance with USC 1746. Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(2) gives the requirements for a valid complaint for an action in rem. It must be verified under oath, describe with reasonable particularity the property that is the subject of the action; and state that the property is within the district or will be within the district while the action is pending. In Spain’s verified complaint, they asserted ownership to La Galga and the Juno. They made no independent assertion that the vessels were within the district. They merely referred to the fact that La Galga and the Juno were “asserted to be the subject of this in rem litigation”. In other words, the strength of their claim was no greater than the unproven assertions made by Sea Hunt. Sea Hunt’s attorneys objected to the form of this verification pp 21-33 Transcript April 1, 1999. Spain conditionally filed an amended verified claim which corrected alleged defects.

25. Docket Entry #133.

26. The Court used this agreement as a substitute for a Spanish res.

27. Docket Entry #130.

28. The last position of the Juno offered by Spain was on October 24 when Juno met up with the Favorite. They used the testimony of Lt. Clemente filed in Washington, DC, on November 13, 1802. This was found in the court record labeled “Documento 4. 26 fotocopias obtenidas de los orignales obrantes en el Legajo número 31 (150) de la Seccion Expediciones a Indias del Archivo D. Alvaro de Bazán – Cuidad Real, España -, consistentes en el expediente de Investigaciones desarrollado por las autoridas espanoles al conocer el naufragio de la Fragata Juno, en el que constan las declaraciones de los 7 supervinientes y las gestiones efectuadas por el Consul General de España en Boston en orden a localizer los restos del naufragio y los possible supervivientes. De esta documentacion se acompaña transcripción mecanografica y traducción no official al ingles. The page containing the entry for October 27, 1802 was not available during the archival search but was available to Cesáreo Fernandez Duro in 1867 when he wrote Naufragios de la Armada Española : Relacion histórica formada con presencia de los documentos oficiales que existen en el Ministerio de Marina Texto impreso. Madrid, 1867. The position stated here was 38°N 56’W. This is 280 miles from Assateague Island.

      In the Columbian Centinal, November 3, 1802, the rendezvous with the Favorite was described as 37°N, 67°W. In the London Gazette this position was described as 36° 40’N and longitude 67° 16’W. It also said there was only $100,000 aboard. The South Carolina Gazette of November 13, however, said that the rendezvous occurred at 36° 44’N 76° 16’W. This position is inland 18 miles from the ocean front at Chesapeake, Virginia, an obvious error. The longitude was apparently a transposition error as the Favorite would have been way off course. The Favorite still had all of her masts and sails and was in good sailing order.  It appears that this version was merely the same version of the Boston paper with typos. The South Carolina paper said she had $700,000 on board, another inconsistency. For the Favorite to be anywhere near this location she would have to have been way off course from her intended destination of Boston, Massachusetts.

29. Docket Entry #135.

30. Docket Entry #136.

31. http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/4thseahunt.html

32. See #26 above. This is the agreement referred to by the court. Spain agreed to this, p. 99, Transcript of Proceedings April 1, 1999. Such agreements may not be available in an in rem action. See Owen, David R., Some Legal Troubles With Treasure: Jurisdiction and Salvage, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol 16, No. 2, April, 1985. See also the case Indian River Recovery Co. v. Adeline, Santa Rosalea, Faithfull Steward, Three Brothers and Cornelia, Civ. A. Nos. 85-310 to 314, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. 30 J. MAR. L. & COM. 253 June 11, 1986. In this case the court declined to proceed to adjudicate title or salvage rights to shipwrecks whose discovery was merely alleged. “Allegations in the complaints about the existence and location of ancient wrecks based upon research and investigation alone to not satisfy the Court that such vessels actually rest at that location or exist at all.”

      In support of the above in rem theory, offered here is Spain’s own argument in its May 26, 1999 brief, p. 1: …”Sea Hunt is not entitled to a salvage award for any action it has taken with the JUNO. As an initial matter, the Court does not have jurisdiction in this in rem proceeding to enter an in personam award against Spain.” As a corollary this argument would then apply to awards in favor of Spain.

33. Docket Entry #161.

34. Docket Entry #163.

35. Docket Entry #185.

36. Docket Entry #184.

37.  Archives of Maryland. Volume 28, Proceedings of the Council, pp 481-2

38. Archivo General de Simancas, Secretaría de Marina 15 – 1. Expediente 184. f. 613 et seq..

39. http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/4thseahunt.html

40. Deed Book #168, p 380, Accomack County Court House, Accomack, VA.

41. Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. The site form for the “Juno”, DHR ID# 44AC0402, says that the wreck is not the Juno. There is no site form for La Galga. 

42. The loan agreement was signed October 17, 2006. Spain, through its attorneys, knew of the confusion over the

      artifacts. A month after Spain was awarded the Juno by the district court it filed a pleading which stated without

       reservation,” Sea Hunt achieved no success in even locating, much less salvaging, the wreck.” (See May 26, 1999

       above). Perhaps this “loan” of artifacts was made to add weight to the legal precedent gained in the Sea hunt case.

       http://www.nps.gov/archeology/SITES/npSites/assateague.htm