View Document Frames
New York Journal of Commerce, September 14, 1839, p.2
For the Journal of Commerce
CASE OF THE AMISTAD AND THE AFRICAN PRISONERS.
In a Spanish paper, published in this city, the ground is assumed that these Africans
are pirates,--that the Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction of the offence
[sic], or the vessel, or its cargo; and that nothing is to be done but for the President
of the United States, after supplies have been obtained, to hand over the African
prisoners to the Spaniards, and allow them to take them where they please; and to
show that these claims are well founded, several articles of the treaty of 1795 with
Spain are cited. This statement in the Spanish paper has been translated and published
in the Express, in the American, and perhaps other papers in this city, and has excited
some surprise and uneasiness in the minds of the friends of these Africans, and the
opposers of the slave trade.
This publication is erroneous, both in law and fact. As to the fact. It assumes that
these Africans are the slaves of these Spaniards, by them rightfully held in bondage,
and for them to resist this bondage is criminal. This is a great mistake, if the
facts are as those who advocate the cause of freedom believe them to be. They insist,
and think it will appear on investigation, that these Africans were taken from Africa
about two months before their arrival at Havana, where they were recently landed
in the night, confined for two or three weeks in a private dwelling, and thence taken
and in the night put on board the Amistad, bound for Principe, by the men who are
now claiming them as slaves, and who well knew all these facts. that this was done
in violation of all law, human and divine, and particularly against the law of Spain,
as it then existed at Havana, and that no longer ago than last November, there was
issued at Madrid a royal order to the Captain General of the Island of Cuba, directing
him to prosecute with zeal all breaches of law against such importation of slaves.
And further, that Ruez and Montez are themselves offenders against the Africans and
the laws of their own country, and that they have not gained, and cannot assert,
any property or right in these Africans. These facts will be investigated before
the Circuit Court in Connecticut at the next term, and who will appear to be pirates,
or the receivers of pirates, remains to be seen. This subject will receive the profound
attention of the court before which it may be brought; and it is improper here to
discuss it. It is sufficient to say, that the African slave trade is as much against
the laws of Spain, as the laws of our own country.
As to the law. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the rights of these unfortunate
Africans are to be passed upon by the President of the United States, or that the
Executive has any thing to do with the subject. By the same treaty referred to by
the Spanish writer, it is most carefully provided that all these questions shall
be settled in the proper tribunals in each country. By the 9th section of the treaty
cited, it is expressly provided that the ships and mechandize are to be restored
as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the property. Where
is this proof to be made, and who is to judge of its sufficiency? All judicial powers
are by our laws confided to the judges. If on this point there was any doubt, the
7th article of this same treaty provides that all investigations arising out of such
cases shall before the ordinary tribunals, and not be subject to executive mandates.
Another error. This writer seems to suppose that the President of the U. S. has power,
and is authorised [sic] to deliver to foreign nations such persons as may have offended
against their laws. No such power exists. The first President Adams, undertook to
exercise such a power, or rather, advised a District Judge to do it; and although
this was in pursuance of the 27th article of our treaty with Great Britain, yet it
drew on such a discussion as it is not very probably another President will invite.
There is no such provision in our treaty with Spain, and upon general principles
of national law, no such right to make such a claim exists. S.
