_The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East Indies by
title of war_
Since it is clear, (as Victoria also says),[37] from the refutation
of any claim to title from the Pope’s Donation, that the Spaniards
when they sailed to those distant lands did not carry with them any
right to occupy them as provinces, only one kind of title remains to
be considered, namely, that based upon war. But even if this title
could be justified, it would not serve to establish sovereignty,
except by right of conquest, that is to say, occupation would be
a prerequisite. But the Portuguese were as far as possible from
occupation of those lands. They were not even at war with most of
the peoples whom the Dutch visited. So therefore no legal claim
could be established there by the Portuguese, because even if they
had suffered wrongs from the East Indians, it might reasonably be
considered by the long peace and friendly commercial relations that
those injuries had been forgiven.
Indeed there was no pretext at all for going to war. For those
who force war upon barbarous peoples, as the Spaniards did upon
the aborigines of America, commonly allege one of two pretexts:
either that they have been refused the right to trade, or that the
barbarians are unwilling to acknowledge the doctrines of the True
Faith. But as the Portuguese actually obtained from the East Indians
the right to trade,[38] they have, on that score at least, no
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Alter vero obtentus nihilo est iustior, quam ille Graecorum in
Barbaros, quo Boëthius respexit:[39a]
_An distant quia dissidentque mores,
Iniustas acies, et fera bella movent,
Alternisque volunt perire telis?
Non est iusta satis saevitiae ratio._
Ista autem et Thomae et Concili Toletani et Gregori et Theologorum,
Canonistarum, Iurisprudentiumque fere omnium conclusio est:[40a]
Quantumcumque fides annuntiata sit Barbaris (nam de his qui
subditi ante fuerunt Christianis Principibus item de Apostatis
alia est quaestio) probabiliter et sufficienter, et si noluerint
eam respicere, non tamen licere hac ratione eos bello persequi, et
spoliare bonis suis.[41a]
Operae pretium est in hanc rem ipsa Caietani verba describere:[42a]
‘Quidam’, ait, ‘infideles nec de iure nec de facto subsunt secundum
temporalem iurisdictionem Principibus Christianis, ut inveniuntur
pagani, qui numquam imperio Romano subditi fuerunt, terras
habitantes, in quibus Christianum numquam fuit nomen. Horum namque
domini, quamvis infideles, legitimi domini sunt, sive regali sive
politico regimine gubernantur; nec sunt propter infidelitatem a
dominio suorum privati, cum dominium sit
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
grounds of complaint. Nor is there any better justification for
the other pretext than the one alleged by the Greeks against the
barbarians, to which Boëthius makes the following allusion:
“_Unjust and cruel wars they wage,
And haste with flying darts the death to meet or deal.
No right nor reason can they show;
’Tis but because their lands and laws are not the same._”[39]
Moreover the verdict of Thomas Aquinas, of the Council of Toledo, of
Gregory, and of nearly all theologians, canonists, and jurists, is as
follows:[40] However persuasively and sufficiently the True Faith has
been preached to the heathen--former subjects of Christian princes
or apostates are quite another question--if they are unwilling to
heed it, that is not sufficient cause to justify war upon them, or to
despoil them of their goods.[41]
It is worth while on this point to quote the actual words of
Cajetan:[42] ‘There are some infidels who are neither in law nor in
fact under the temporal jurisdiction of Christian princes; just as
there were pagans who were never, subjects of the Roman Empire, and
yet who inhabit lands where the name of Christ was never heard. Now
their rulers, though heathen, are legitimate rulers, whether the
people live under a monarchical or a democratic régime. They are not
to be deprived of sovereignty over their possessions
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ex iure positivo, et infidelitas ex divino iure, quod non tollit ius
positivum, ut superius in quaestione habitum est. Et de his nullam
scio legem quoad temporalia. Contra hos nullus Rex, nullus Imperator,
nec Ecclesia Romana potest movere bellum ad occupandas terras eorum,
aut subiciendos illos temporaliter; quia nulla subest causa iusta
belli, cum Iesus Christus Rex Regum, cui data est potestas in caelo
et in terra, miserit ad capiendam possessionem mundi, non milites
armatae militiae, sed sanctos praedicatores, sicut oves inter lupos.
Vnde nec in testamento veteri, ubi armata manu possessio erat
capienda, terrae infidelium inductum lego bellum alicui propter hoc
quod non erant fideles, sed quia nolebant dare transitum, vel quia
eos offenderant, ut Madianitae, vel ut recuperarent sua, divina
largitate sibi concessa. Vnde GRAVISSIME PECCAREMVS, si fidem Christi
Iesu per hanc viam ampliare contenderemus; nec essemus LEGITIMI
DOMINI illorum, sed MAGNA LATROCINIA committeremus, et teneremur
ad restitutionem, utpote INIVSTI DEBELLATORES AVT OCCVPATORES.
Mittendi essent ad hos praedicatores boni viri, qui verbo et exemplo
converterent eos ad Deum; et non qui eos opprimant, spolient,
scandalizent, subiciant, et duplo gehennae filios faciant, more
Pharisaeorum’.
Et in hanc formam audimus saepe a Senatu in Hispania, et Theologis
praecipue Dominicanis decretum fuisse, sola verbi praedicatione non
bello Americanos ad fidem traducendos; libertatem etiam quae illis eo
nomine erepta esset,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
because of their unbelief, since sovereignty is a matter of positive
law, and unbelief is a matter of divine law, which cannot annul
positive law, as has been argued above. In fact I know of no law
against such unbelievers as regards their temporal possessions.
Against them no King, no Emperor, not even the Roman Church,
can declare war for the purpose of occupying their lands, or of
subjecting them to temporal sway. For there is no just cause for war,
since Jesus Christ the King of Kings, to whom all power was given in
heaven and on earth, sent out for the conquest of the world not armed
soldiers, but holy disciples, “as sheep in the midst of wolves.” Nor
do I read in the Old Testament, when possession had to be obtained
by force of arms, that the Israelites waged war on any heathen land
because of the unbelief of its inhabitants; but it was because the
heathen refused them the right of innocent passage, or attacked them,
as the Midianites did; or it was to recover the possessions which
had been bestowed upon them by divine bounty. Wherefore we should be
most miserable sinners if we should attempt to extend the religion
of Jesus Christ by such means. Nor should we be their lawful rulers,
but, on the contrary, we should be committing great robberies, and
be compelled to make restitution as unjust conquerors and invaders.
There must be sent to them as preachers, good men to convert them to
God by their teaching and example; not men who will oppress them,
despoil them, subdue and proselytize them, and “make them twofold
more the children of hell than themselves,”* after the manner of the
Pharisees’.
* [Matthew XXIII, 15].
Indeed I have often heard that it has been decreed by the Council
of Spain, and by the Churchmen, especially the Dominicans, that the
Americans (Aztecs and Indians) should be converted to the Faith by
the preaching of the Word alone, and not by war, and even that their
liberty of
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
restitui debere, quod a Paulo tertio Pontifice, et Carolo V
Imperatore Hispaniarum Rege comprobatum dicitur.
Omittimus iam Lusitanos in plerisque partibus religionem nihil
promovere, ne operam quidem dare, cum soli lucro invigilent. Immo et
illud ibi verum esse, quod de Hispanis in America Hispanus scripsit,
non miracula, non signa audiri, non exempla vitae religiosae, quae
ad eandem fidem alios possent impellere, sed multa scandala, multa
facinora, multas impietates.
Quare cum et possessio et titulus deficiat possessionis, neque res
dicionesque Indorum pro talibus haberi debeant quasi nullius ante
fuissent, neque cum illorum essent, ab aliis recte acquiri potuerint,
sequitur Indorum populos, de quibus nos loquimur, Lusitanorum
proprios non esse, sed liberos, et sui iuris; de quo ipsi doctores
Hispani non dubitant.[43a]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
which they had been robbed in the name of religion should be
restored. This policy is said to have received the approval of Pope
Paul III, and of Emperor Charles V, King of the Spains.
I pass over the fact that the Portuguese in most places do not
further the extension of the faith, or indeed, pay any attention to
it at all, since they are alive only to the acquisition of wealth.
Nay, the very thing that is true of them, is the very thing which has
been written of the Spaniards in America by a Spaniard, namely, that
nothing is heard of miracles or wonders or examples of devout and
religious life such as might convert others to the same faith, but on
the other hand no end of scandals, of crimes, of impious deeds.
Wherefore, since both possession and a title of possession are
lacking, and since the property and the sovereignty of the East
Indies ought not to be considered as if they had previously been
_res nullius_, and since, as they belong to the East Indians, they
could not have been acquired legally by other persons, it follows
that the East Indian nations in question are not the chattels of the
Portuguese, but are free men and _sui juris_. This is not denied even
by the Spanish jurists themselves.[43]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPUT V
_Mare ad Indos aut ius eo navigandi non esse proprium Lusitanorum
titulo occupationis_
Si ergo in populos terrasque et diciones Lusitani ius nullum
quaesiverunt, videamus an mare et navigationem, aut mercaturam
sui iuris facere potuerint. De mari autem prima sit consideratio,
quod cum passim in iure aut nullius, aut commune, aut publicum
iuris gentium dicatur, hae voces quid significent ita commodissime
explicabitur, si Poetas ab Hesiodo omnes, et Philosophos; et
Iurisconsultos veteres imitati in tempora distinguamus, ea, quae
tempore forte haud longo, certa tamen ratione, et sui natura discreta
sunt. Neque nobis vitio verti debet si in iuris a natura procedentis
explicatione auctoritate et verbis eorum utimur quos constat naturali
iudicio plurimum valuisse.
Sciendum est igitur in primordiis vitae humanae aliud quam nunc est
dominium, aliud communionem fuisse.[44a] Nam dominium nunc proprium
quid significat, quod scilicet ita est alicuius ut alterius non sit
eodem modo. Commune autem dicimus, cuius proprietas inter plures
consortio
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -