The Sea Hunt Case : An Extraordinary Legal Fiction

On July 21, 2000, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals awarded two Spanish warships to Spain supposedly discovered just of the beaches of Assateague Island in 1998 by a treasure hunting company called Sea Hunt, Inc. One was the 56 gun warship, La Galga, which ran ashore on Assateague on September 5, 1750 and the other was the 34 gun frigate, Juno, which sank over two hundred miles from shore on October 28, 1802. This landmark case was the first time Spain had entered litigation over one of their lost galleons. Also present as a party was the Commonwealth of Virginia who had issued permits to Sea Hunt in 1997 to explore for shipwrecks along the barrier island of Assateague within Virginia waters. The United States appeared as an amicus curia weighing in on the side of Spain. There were other amicus briefs filed by the State of North Carolina; Columbus-America Discovery Group; Salvors, Incorporated; Cobb Coin Company, Incorporated; Intersal, Incorporated; Enterprise Marine, Incorporated; Quicksilver, Incorporated, and Deep Sea Research, Incorporated, all siding with Sea Hunt. To understand the divergence between the law and fact we must first start with language found within the opinion. The Court first off stated in its opinion that the jurisdiction was admiralty, in rem. It was a suit against property lost in navigable waters. Anyone having a claim to the property was invited to step forward and prove their ownership. The defendant(s) in this case were stylized as “The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels.” In order for the Court to issue a judgment in rem it had to affirm that it had jurisdiction. For La Galga , the Court said that “LA GALGA remained undisturbed until the recent salvage efforts by Sea Hunt.” For the Juno it proclaimed “the location of the wreck was not discovered until Sea Hunt's recent efforts.” “It is undisputed that LA GALGA and JUNO are within Virginia's submerged lands.” La Galga actually lay two miles south of the Sea Hunt location and buried in a former inlet. The Juno was not lying a thousand yards off the beach but over two hundred miles away. Neither La Galga nor the Juno were legally or factually within the jurisdiction of the admiralty court. It is no surprise then that the vessels that were before the court remained “unidentified” throughout the case. These shipwrecks were not Spanish and Spain, who was claiming ownership, offered no proof that they were. In fact they even argued convincingly that the Juno had not been found, yet they won. This is what happened.
In 1998, Sea Hunt, Inc. filed claims in federal court against two shipwrecks they wanted to believe were La Galga and the Juno . The claim of discovery was based on three artifacts brought into court. Their attorney from the outset said that they may or may not have come from these wrecks. Sea Hunt had no basis to support their hypotheses.
The truth is that Spanish documents clearly prove that the Juno had sunk 250 miles from the coast with all hands except six who had transferred to an American schooner. They watched from the schooner as the Juno, with over 400 Spaniards on board, disappeared in a sinking condition.
As for La Galga, it couldn’t have been that shipwreck because she lies buried inside a former inlet on the barrier island and within the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. The federal government has known about this since 1983 when they received a research report as to its location. After Sea Hunt filed its claim in the federal district court in Norfolk, Virginia, the Justice Department encouraged Spain to file a claim. They even attempted to represent Spain at taxpayer expense. The government did no research into why these had to be Spanish shipwrecks. They even forgot that NOAA had listed La Galga in its database as lying with the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. The federal government said nothing about this during court testimony.
Throughout the trial there was a great deal of skepticism as to the identities of these shipwrecks. They were located in an area where a number of other eighteenth and nineteenth century shipwrecks have occurred. Sea Hunt, from the very beginning, told the court that they might not be these two Spanish ships. Judge J. Calvitt Clark, Jr. raised the issue of the identities more than once. When pressed for a ruling he 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 are the two vessels Juno and La Galga ...” The court even suggested that the burden of proof rested with the United States that there actually were two Spanish ships discovered. The Justice Department attorney weighed in and stated, “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 Commonwealth of Virginia, who was there because of the permits issued to Sea Hunt to search in their waters, stated that the claims were premature. Spain’s standing to be in the case rested on actual Spanish shipwrecks being before the court. In order to proceed in the trial, the three parties, Sea Hunt, Spain, and Virginia, agreed to a stipulation that the Spanish shipwrecks were within three miles of the coast in Virginia waters. The unidentified shipwreck believed to be La Galga lay within a hundred yards of Assateague. The real shipwreck lay two miles south and buried under the island. The “ Juno ” was said to be within a thousand yards of shore. She actually sank several hundred miles out at sea.
Spain wanted a precedent to use against other treasure hunters and the Justice Department was there to help them. Virginia wanted to test the scope of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987. It wanted all shipwrecks within the three mile limit regardless of sovereignty. Sea Hunt wanted to win so that they could continue looking for the Spanish shipwrecks. They had tried to minimize the emphasis on the alleged identities but it was too late. Later in the case, Spain even threatened them with sanctions for trying to change their mind. The stipulation kept the contest alive. The court was now able to proceed, Spain remained in the case.
When the district court made its ruling it awarded La Galga to the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Juno to Spain. There were cross appeals and ultimately both shipwrecks were awarded to Spain by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (221 F.3d 634 4th Cir. 2000) much to the glee of Spain and the federal government. The federal government has always hated treasure hunters. This decision was hailed as a great victory in Spain as well as for historic preservation. It was the first time the country had entered a dispute over treasure from one of its lost galleons and won. But a close examination of the court record clearly shows that the shipwrecks had not been found. When Sea Hunt asked for a salvage reward for the Juno , James Goold for Spain told the court that “Sea Hunt achieved no success in even locating, much less salvaging, the wreck.” He urged the court to rule anyway, “We believe that the court can rule, affirm Spain’s ownership of the JUNO regardless of which place it happens to be.” Because the court only had in rem jurisdiction, it was powerless to issue an award to Spain without actual Spanish ships being within the court’s jurisdiction. But the court relied on the previously agreed to stipulation. The shipwrecks were present by agreement only, not by fact. This dubious victory for Spain did not put the issue of the shipwreck identities to rest. Spain realized that since it had won title to the wrecks it could not walk away from the artifacts. Sea Hunt had turned over nearly one hundred by this time. Virginia suggested that if Spain wanted the artifacts that they must prove they came from Spanish shipwrecks. This enraged Spain’s attorney. Not only had they no proof, but they had already argued that the wrecks hadn’t been found. Virginia reminded the court, “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 .”
Since Spain had no evidence of their own that these two shipwrecks were Spanish, they cleverly used documentation provided by Sea Hunt against them. Spain submitted an exhibit prepared by Sea Hunt listing 27 shipwrecks that were known to be in the area. The list was by no means all inclusive as many other wrecks are documented as lost in this area but unknown to ea Hunt. In that list was La Galga and the Juno but no historical basis was provided why they were there, just the vessels name and year of sinking was given. There were only five wrecks 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 court had looked at the artifact list. There were several silver Spanish coins on that list. The court took the bait. No one told the court that Spanish coins were legal tender in this country and could come from any shipwreck well into the late nineteenth century. To illustrate the point, I recently saw some eighteenth century Spanish coins being auctioned on Ebay. They had been dug up in a Civil War camp site.
In October 2007, I published The Hidden Galleon: The true story of a lost Spanish ship and the legendary wild horses of Assateague Island . This book recounts the complete history of the Spanish warship La Galga and her discovery within the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in 1983. It is this shipwreck that created the legend that the wild horses on Assateague came from a Spanish galleon. They were made world famous when Marguerite Henry published Misty of Chincoteague in 1947. The story was made into a movie in 1961. Also included is an inside look at the Sea Hunt case and its exploitation by Spain’s attorney in the Odyssey Marine Case. James Goold of Covington & Burling had also represented Spain in the Sea Hunt case.
In February of 2008, Gray & Pape, cultural resource managers from Richmond, Virginia, filed for a permit with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to perform a non-intrusive magnetic survey of the wreck site. To date, the permit has not been acted upon. Spain has instructed the Wildlife Service to deny the permit and keep the archaeologist away. They say they own the shipwreck buried under U.S. soil. The admiralty court, which only had jurisdiction over navigable waters, had awarded an unidentified shipwreck to Spain that was in the ocean. It appears that Spain now believes the original court determination was an error. But if one returns to the opinion of the 4th Circuit they will find language which addresses the contingency of the shipwreck being proven to not be in the ocean. Sea Hunt had asked the court to consider the Treaty of 1763 where Spain gave up all her possessions in North America to Great Britain. Sea Hunt argued that Article XX was an all inclusive grant which included the seabed adjoining the continent. The appellate court disagreed saying:

“Second, the cession of state property in Article XX is limited to all
that Spain possesses "on the continent of North America." The plain meaning of this is that Spain ceded to Great Britain only what was located on land. Spain did not cede possessions in the sea or seabed. The district court focused on the fact that the "clause is a sweeping grant of territory and property," yet overlooked the "on the continent" limitation. This limitation excludes wrecks like LA GALGA that were located not on the continent, but in the seabed.”

Had the court known where the wreck actually lie it would have been forced to order in the United States as a party since the wreck is buried on federal property. Then the suit against La Galga would most likely have been dismissed, not because of Spain’s claim of sovereign immunity but the obvious one that the federal government has. In 1750, the captain of La Galga declared that “The Owner of the Land” owned the wreck. The buried wreck was conveyed with the land every time it changed owners up until it was taken by the federal government in a condemnation proceeding in 1943:

“…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…”

When the federal government allowed Spain to have veto over the permit to map the site of La Galga as she rests within the wildlife refuge, I asked for a legal opinion as to who owns the wreck. The officials were asked to consider the above that was found in the 4th Circuit opinion. They have refused to answer. They have also refused to issue the permit or deny it.
In the records of the Department of Historic Resources, Virginia has noted on the site form for the shipwreck alleged as the Juno that it was “not the Juno.” There is no site form for La Galga .
Spain and the National Park Service have signed an agreement for Spain to loan these “artifacts” to the National Park Service for display at the new Visitors Center at the Assateague Island National Seashore in Berlin, Maryland. The agreement provides that Spain has the final say on how these artifacts are to be labeled and displayed. The Visitors Center is expected to open this summer.
Last year through a Freedom of Information Act request to the National Park Service it was admitted by archaeologists with the National Park Service that they are unable to attribute these artifacts to these Spanish ships. They admitted that they have done no verification of the historical documentation available for La Galga and the Juno, and that the only source they have to justify the Spanish connection is the 4th Circuit’s opinion. They are also aware that Spain is blocking verification of La Galga’s resting place at the same time these artifacts will be presented to the public.