View Document Frames
"Rough draft of Andrew Judson's jurisdiction ruling, January 1840, Andrew T. Judson Papers, Coll. 247, box 1/6, Manuscripts Collection, Mystic Seaport Museum"
Dr. Sharp was the surgeon on board the Brig Washington, and with his glass, took observations during the progress of the Brig up to the schooner and with his accurate observations, is fully able to concur with Lieut. Mead as to the position of the L. Amistad, and that it was 1/2 miles from the shoar [sic].
The Collectors, Mr. [L_], and Capt. [Martin] of the Cutter, unite with Dr. Sharp, and Lieut. Mead in saying that the place thus ascertained is not less than half a mile from the shoar. The position of the schooner is as well ascertained as any fact can well be under such circumstances. It has been claimed on the side of the Africans that Capt. Green and others, who were on the beach, make this distance much less -- "within hail, 25 or 30 rods from shoar."
As the case is viewed by the Court, it does not become essential to raise any question which of these witnesses is the most accurate. By giving credit to one class, we need not discard the others. When the Law is applied to these facts, it must be seen that the difference between them cannot vary the result of the question, in the least degree.
The jurisdiction of this Court is wholly regulated by statute, and to that alone we must look for our guide. By the Laws of Congress each District Court has jurisdiction over all seizures made within that District. A ship, or goods seized within one District cannot be removed to another District for adjudication. The jurisdiction in that case is exclusively confined to the District where the seizure is made. Another branch of the same Law provides, that when the seizure is made on the high seas, the vessel or goods may be carried into any District in the U. S. for adjudication.
The great question here is a question of law. Was the L' Amistad seized on the high seas? The place being ascertained as a matter of fact, how shall this be considered in point of law? This must depend entirely upon the legal significance of the term "high seas" as used in the Judiciary Act of 1789. In answering this question, I have only to repeat the language of learned jurists, and to yield my assent to determinations already made. Fi To the former, I feel it my duty to listen with respect, and by the latter I am bound as a precedent.
Perhaps a more conclusive arguement cannot be met with, than that of Mr Webster, in the case of the U.S. vs. Bevins 3 Shea 336.
"The common and obvious meaning of the expression high seas is also the true legal meaning. The expression describes the open ocean, where the dominion of the winds and the waves prevail, without check or control. Ports and harbours [sic] on the contrary are places of refuge, in which protection and shelter are sought from this turbulent dominion, within the inclosures [sic] and projections of the Land The high seas, and [havens], instead of being of similar import are always [? of ?]. The "high seas" imports the unenclosed and open ocean, without the fauces terrae. Ports and havens are not parts of the "high seas" they are within the bodies of Countries."
This is a very lucid exposition of the term "high seas" and it accords with all the learned commentators both antient [sic] and modern. In addition to this, it may be safly [sic] said that the place must also be where the tide ebbs and flows, and the "high seas" extends to low water mark, unless the seizure was made within some Port or harbor, by [or] river. In this case the evidence clearly shows, that the seizure was not made in any port or harbour. In fact, there is scarcly [sic] an indentation on the coast from Montauk to Culloden's Point. That fish boats, and other craft, may have anchored there, does not convert this into a Port or harbour. So many vessels be seen at anchor on the south side of Long Island, and many miles at sea.
If this schooner had been within a known Port -- a harbour -- or bay, like Sag Harbour -- Gardner Bay or Black Rock Harbour the aspect of this case would have been materially changed. But this seizure was in fact made, beyond low water mark -- where the tide ebbs and flows -- in 4 fathom water, many miles from any known Port or harbour. The place of seizure was therefore in the open ocean where the dominion of the winds and the waves prevail without check or control. That it was near Montauk, or within a mile of the shoar can make no difference, while it was on the waters as described by the witnesses. The well known position of Montauk gives conclusiveness to their arguement. We all understand from childhood, that Montauk projects into the sea. The waters of the open ocean have been beating there for ages past, and must so continue during all time. The waves of the Atlantic roll over the spot where the Amistad lay.
This position has been sanctioned, by high judicial authority in our own country. Judge Story, who has long been one of the most able jurist, in this or any other country removes all doubt from this case. In the trial of the "Sloop Abby" [?] Mason 360, the opinion of the Circuit Court is pronounced, in language very pertinent to this case.
"I agree to the position," (says that learned Judge) "that the Court below had no cognizance of the cause of the seizure, on which the libel was founded, was in the Port of Portland for the Judiciary Act of 1789, Ch. 20 [?] gives exclusive jurisdiction of all seizures made within any District, to the District Court of such District. Concurrant jurisdiction in the District Courts, only, where the seizure is made on the high seas. But the objection here feels no point of fact. The seizure (of the Abby) was first made, about 5 miles off Cape Elizabeth and was therefore on the high seas, since all waters below the line of low water mark, on the sea coast, are comprehended within that discription [sic], and when the tide flows, the waters to high water mark are also properly, the high seas.
Will it be said that because the L'Amistad had passed Montaug light, and lay at anchor on the north of Montauk, that therefore she was in the body of the county of Suffolk and State of New York?
Suppose the schooner had actually been at anchor 25 miles to the N.W. in Long Island Sound, with Long Island on the south -- Connecticut on the North -- and Garnder Island, Fisher Island, Plumb Island and Block Island to the eastward what would be the question then?
For all purposes of Admiralty, Long Island Sound has ever been considered high seas. In the case of The Elizabeth 1st of [P_]; Rep. 10, it was held, that Long Island Sound does not belong to either Connecticut or New York nor to any District in either of those states. Surely then, the waters at Montauk -- upon the south or the north of that point of land -- can never be deemed within the jurisdiction of New York. To say that the Amistad was within the District of New York would be perverting the plainest principles of common sense, and [setting] at utter defiance the authority of adjudicated cases. This cannot be done. It is my business to pronounce the law as it is.
These principles being well settled it becomes my duty to apply them to the facts in this case, upon the present issue. Having found the fact that the seizure of the schooner Le Amistad was made upon the high seas, and not in a port or harbour, the Seisor [sic] had good right and lawfull [sic] authority to bring the vessel into the Port of New London and when first brought here, the jurisdiction of the District Court attaches to the vessel and her cargo. Were the Court to order her transmission to the District of New York, a plea to the jurisdiction in that District must prevail. For she was not seized in any Port or harbour of that District -- and she was first brought into the Connecticut District.
The libel of Ths. R. Gedney and others is properly filed in this Court, and the plea to the jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
The decision of the Circuit Court, in Sept. last, does not conflict with this Opinion. I refer now to that part of the case, which was before the Grand Jury, relating to the murder of Capt. Ferrer.
While the Bill of Indictment was pending before the Grand Jury, the Court were informed by their special finding, that the murder was committed on board a Spanish vessel -- under the Spanish flag -- upon a Spanish citizen by Africans. No Court in this country can have jurisdiction of such case. Had the vessel been American the offense would have been against our Laws, and the perpetrators would have been held to trial here.
The Laws of Spain alone, could reach the act. It is a very familiar principle, that, with us, if an offence [sic] is committed in one country, the offender cannot be put on his trial in another. If in one state, he cannot be carried to another state for trial. If an offence is committed in the Kingdom of Great Britain, he cannot be tried in France or America. The sovereignty of the state or nation where the offence is committed, has been violated, and the judicial process of that state alone can punish.
So upon the high seas, if an offence is committed, the Laws of that country to where the vessel belonged must be enforced upon the individual.
It has been further claimed that a portion of the persons named in the plea were on shore, when the Amistad was seized and as to those individuals this Court has no jurisdiction. It is not necessary to go into a full consideration of all the arguements which have been urged. The Amistad having been lawfully seized and brought here for adjudication -- the vessel and cargo, and the Africans, alleged to be slaves were also rightfully brought in. Those who were on shore belonged to the vessel --were incedent to the vessel itself. They were only on shoar for a temporary purpose -- provisions and water.
