Joy to Manuel A. Vengoechea , Delegate of the President of the Sovereign State of Panama, January 5, 1866

[Translation.]

APPROPRIATION OF THE STEAMER ANTIAGUA.

Bogota, January 5, 1866.

Sir: I have seen in the columns of the Tiempo, of the 3d instant, your letter addressed to me as agent of La Compania Unida, and in answer I will say a very few words.

I will leave the States and the Congress to judge respecting the convenience and justice of the law of 1864, about steam navigation of the river Magdalena, and the sacredness of the interests of a whole nation in comparison with those of a single State, and limit myself to the question of carriage of passengers., which is the pretext for the outrage which has been committed.

The constitution of the Colombian Union, treating of individual guarantees, in the second section, article 15, paragraph 8, says:

“Liberty to travel in the territory of the United States, and to leave it without the necessity of a passport or permit from any authority in the time of peace, unless the judicial authority should have decreed the detention of the individual.”

The before-mentioned navigation law of 25th of May, 1864, says that “the government’s functionaries and employés of the State are prohibited from—

“2. Subjecting to formalities of any kind the loading or unloading of the vessels, their voyages or stoppages, so that these operations may be performed with the greatest freedom, and without restriction or detention of any kind.

“3. From subjecting the passengers and crew of vessels to formalities or obligations.”

From this the deduction is clear that neither the authorities of Baranquilla, nor the employés of the Compania Unida could prevent passengers from embarking or disembarking from the steamer Antioquia, and so 1 manifested to the governor of the province of Baranquilla, the military commander Señor Nicolas Jimeno Collantes and Señor Joaquin Vengoechea, when they came to my house at midnight on the 17th of November and made me get up a few hours before the departure of the steamer Antioquia with the pretension of impeding the embarcation of Señor Capella Toledo and Señor Pumarejo.

I told them that I could not take upon myself the responsibility of hindering their embarcation; that the governor, if he thought himself authorized, could do what he thought proper.

From my house they went to that of Captain Maal, and the governor gave him a verbal order not to receive on board those individuals.

The captain asked for a guard to impede their embarcation, which was refused.

At the hour of the departure of the vessel, and when the two individuals made their appearance, they were notified of the prohibition of the governor.

Two employés of the government, Señor Angel Benavidez and David Pereira, then presented themselves, and asked the captain if he had a written order from the governor; he answered he had not; they then said that he (the captain) could not refuse to admit them on board.

I suppose the captain was foolish enough to admit them on board under assumed names, so as to conciliate all parties.

I qualify as foolish the act of the captain in having admitted on board the two individuals in question under assumed names, if it really happened, because as he had a perfect right to admit them on board under their own names, the variation of them did not occasion any fault, nor could it saddle him with any responsibility.

If the authorities of the State of Bolivar wished, and had a right to prevent the embarcation of the parties in question, they ought to have arrested them, seeing that they walked about publicly, or placed a guard to hinder their access to the steamer; but not exact of the employés of the company and the steamers that we should commit acts contrary to the navigation laws.

Let us suppose that the captain had committed a breach of neutrality; this would not have given a right to the State of Magdalena to capture a vessel in the service of the national government and attack the interests of other States. The most it could have done would have been to appeal to the national government and to the Compania Unida. This gave proof in the last general revolution that in case of culpability the parties were punished. The charge of having embarked the Messrs. Herrera, when they went down from the capital, is even more ridiculous, not only for what is said above, but also how should the employés of the vessel know the intention of said gentlemen to be hostile to the State?

As to the point called Gloria, in which they disembarked, it is not a fact that it is a point never frequented, for it is one of the wood stations for a vessels of the company, and has been so for many years; also from there are embarked parts of the cargoes which are brought from Ocana.

I remain, sir, &c.,