View Document Frames
New York Journal of Commerce, 14 September , 1839, p.1
From the Express.
SPANISH VIEW OF THE AMISTAD CASE.
We find in the Spanish paper “Noticioso di Ambos Mundos” the following article
on an important subject, containing some new views and arguments upon the question,
and we hasten to lay the article before our readers in order that the public may
know the opinions entertained both by our citizens and by foreigners, that the matter
may be properly debated and an opportunity thus afforded to meet and answer all arguments.
From the Noticioso di’Ambos Mundos.
“THE SPANISH SCHOONER AMISTAD.”
In our preceding number we gave the substance of what had occurred respecting this
schooner, and we have observed, as we expected, that this subject has given rise
to a debate in which all the newspapers in this extensive republic have joined with
all the warmth peculiar to this important matter.
There are contrary opinions on this subject, of course, as is usually the case even
in matters of the least moment; it is not to be wondered at therefore that in this
country, where there are such conflicting interests on all matters relating to slavery,
there should be a greater discrepancy of opinions than normal. To us it appears that
the question has not as yet been presented in its true light, because more has been
done to emit personal feelings than to do impartial justice.--We are likewise disposed
to portray our individual feelings, our language, perhaps, might be very different,
as no one has detested slavery and the slave trade more than we have during the whole
course of our life, but private feelings and private interests must be sacrificed
up on the altar of justice, they must yield to principles which constitute the ground
work of society, to the law of nations and to the unquestionable right which every
nation has to be governed by its own laws in all things which are not contrary to
the treaties and compacts which it may have entered into with foreign nations. The
main point then, in the present inquiry, is in our opinion to establish the relative
right which the government of the United States may have to dispose of this vessel
and its cargo and to try the mutiny, piracy and murders committed by the blacks which
were being conveyed on board of said schooner from Havana to Guanaja, both ports
in the island of Cuba. In order to attain our object we will begin by inserting the
three following articles of the treaty made between Spain and the United States,
in the year 1795, which is still in force according to the 12th article of the other
treaty of 1819 upon the cession of Florida. They are as follows:
“Art. 8. In case the subjects and inhabitants of either party, with their shipping,
whether public and of war, or private and of merchants, be forced through stress
of weather, pursuit of pirates or enemies, or any other urgent necessity, for seeking
of shelter and harbor to retreat and enter into any of the rivers, bays, roads or
ports belonging to the other party, they shall be received and treated with all humanity,
and enjoy all favor, protection and help, and they shall be permitted to refresh
and provide themselves, at reasonable rates, with victuals, and all things needful
for the subsistence of their persons, or reparation of their ships or prosecution
of their voyage; and they shall no ways be hindered from returning out of the said
ports or roads, but may remove the depart when and whither they please without any
let or hindrance.
“Art. 9. All ships and merchandise of what nature soever, which shall be rescued
out of the hands of any pirates or robbers on the high seas, shall be brought into
some port of either state and shall be delivered to the custody of the officers of
that port in order to be taken care of, and restored entire to the true proprietor,
as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the property thereof.”
“Art. 10. When any vessel of either party shall be wrecked, foundered, or otherwise
damaged on the coast, or within the dominion of the other, their respective subjects
or citizens shall receive, as well for themselves as for their vessels and effects,
the same assistance which would be due to the inhabitants of the country where the
damage happens, and shall pay the same charges and dues only as the said inhabitants
would be subject to pay in like case; and if the operations of repair should require
that the whole or any part of the cargo be unloaded, they shall pay no duties, charges
or fees on the part which they shall [illegible text] carry away."
Here then is a [illegible] brig Argilla [illegible text] by her owners by [illegible
text] to this coast, in order to save them[illegible text] who had [illegible text]
on the high seas [illegible text] the hope of finding an asylum and protection in
this nation. This government extends to them the hand of protection, and saves them
from their awful situation. This is a humane and benevolent action, but it is no
more than every man and every community would do under similar circumstances, unless
the vessel had been cast upon the coast of the Caffrarian or Caribbean savages, and
there is no greater merit or anything more extraordinary in this act than what results
from the performance of a social duty. Noble, generous and heroic actions are those
the performance of which may be omitted or dispensed with without blame; they are
in fine those which have produced a great good at a great sacrifice or at the imminent
peril of the life, property or reputation of the actor. Where is the man that would
not abhor this country who could refuse its assistance to the unfortunate who might
implore it under such circumstances? Reproach in such a case would be general, and
such refusal would be considered an unpardonable crime; it is a duty not to commit
a crime, therefore in this first step nothing more has been done than to comply with
a duty. In order then to render the action a noble and meritorious one, it would
be necessary still further to extend the assistance which has been given, to make
it effective, to protect still more the unhappy beings who apply for succor, and
finally that the act should be one of disinterestedness. Because if on the one hand
the government without regard to the spirit and letter of treaties should assume
in the matter powers to which it is not entitled, and on the other hand a numerous
class of citizens conspires to deprive the owners of their slaves, and again the
right to salvage is insisted on, what would there be praiseworthy on the simple act
of having rescued these individuals from the power of the savages, without risk or
expense? We have thought proper to make these observations, dictated to us by natural
reason, before entering into the question of law, because mankind, before they were
acquainted with written laws, recognized justice, felt the effect of conscience,
and knew how to judge correctly of good and evil actions, without any other guide
than that divine inspiration which has been infused into the breast of every man
by his Maker, to enable him to distinguish good from evil. Unfortunately, however,
this instinct or inward conviction which rarely misleads us, has through the corruption
of society yielded to written law which is not always just, but which is still binding
because it is conventional; we will then consider which is the side favored by law.
As the owners or freighters themselves of this vessel have brought her to this coast,
seeking shelter and protection, they are clearly entitled by the 8th article of the
treaty between Spain and the United States to be received and treated with all humanity
and to enjoy all favor, protection and help and to be permitted to refresh and provide
themselves with all things needful for the prosecution of their voyage, and this
government has no power to throw any impediments in the way. If we consider the 9th
article we will perceive that it directs that all ships and merchandize of what nature
so ever, which shall be received out of the hands of any pirates shall be restored
ENTIRE to their owners. In the 10th article it is stipulated that when any vessel
shall be wrecked or damaged “the respective subjects or citizens shall receive, as
well for themselves as for vessels and effects, the same assistance which would be
due to the inhabitants of the country where the damage happens.” It is then clear
that in the present case the government has nothing more to do than to protect the
owners in the possession of their property, to afford them every facility to remedy
their losses and to promote the prosecution of their voyage to their destination
without exacting salvage or any other charge to which American citizens would not
be subjected.
Again, it is well known that every nation has the unquestionable right of enacting
and enforcing its own laws and that other nations have no right to intermeddle in
the passing upon the justice or injustice of those laws; it is sufficient to prove
that the laws have been violated to subject the transgressors to be treated as criminals
in relation to to the offended government. The law of nations and the opinion of
jurists are very clear and explicit on this point, and upon the obligation of one
nation to surrender up to another its criminals upon demand; without going far and
will cite an authority which can not be suspected by Americans; it is that of the
celebrated late Chancellor of the State of New York, James Kent, who in the 30th
Section of the first volume says: “Public Jurists declare that every state
is bound to deny an asylum to criminals, and upon application and due examination
of the case to surrender the fugitive to the foreign state where the crime was committed.
The guilty party cannot be tried and punished by any other jurisdiction than the
one whole laws have been violated; and therefore the duty of surrendering him applies
as well to the case of the State surrendering as to the case of the subjects of the
State demanding the fugitives."
In answer to this, some allege that the accused in the present instance are slaves,
and that the acts of violence which they have committed are excusable upon the principle
that they were committed with a view to regain their liberty. This however is merely
an individual opinion, and the point is not to be discussed with private individuals
nor with any particular State of the Union, but with the general government,and the
latter cannot assume powers inconsistent with the law of nations and treaties. It
is sufficient for this government to know that the parties whose surrender is demanded
are criminals in the country whose laws have been broken, and they must then be tried
in that country , the crime having been committed by the subjects of that nation
and under its flag. Can the government of the United States sanction the principle
that robbery and murder are not crimes when committed by slaves for the purpose of
regaining their freedom? Can such a declaration be made by a government which recognizes
slavery not only in various States of the Union, but even in the District of Columbia,
in the very spot where the capitol stands? Will such a principle be upheld by a government
whose legislative power decreed, scarcely two years ago, that no petition in favor
of the abolition of slavery, should be read in that body? By no means--this strange
contradiction cannot be, as it involves an absurdity and the act would be suicidal.
But let us learn to do justice to others without consulting precedents, laws and
written stipulations, and guided only by that sound maxim which declares that ”we
should do unto others as we wish that others should do unto us;” and put this government
and the Americans in the place of the Spaniards and let them candidly say what they
would wish the Spanish government to do in case one of the American vessels which
usually sail with a cargo of slaves from Norfolk or Charleston, to New Orleans, should
encounter with a like misfortune and put into a Spanish port? Would they not exact
the fulfillment of treaties? Would they not consider that they alone had the right
to try the criminals?
Many persons hazard the argument that the negroes in question are not legally slaves
as they were purchased in Havanna, where they say they were recently brought contrary
to the laws of Spain. It is not the province of the authorities of this country,
we repeat, to decide this point,--this government has no treaty with Spain respecting
the abortion of the slave trade. This trade is not contrary to the law of nations,
but is an infraction only of the laws of some nations, and to those nations alone
it appertains to punish those of their citizens who have violated the laws. If it
be true that these slaves were imported clandestinely into Cuba, the Spanish tribunals
will declare them free, and will take into consideration this circumstance in extenuation
of their crime and punishment.
In short, this is a subject upon which much more will still be said and written,
and in the mean time we have no doubt, but on the contrary we can vouch that Don
Anjel Caldevonde la Barca, Minister Plenipotentiary from Spain at Washington will
display on this occasion all that zeal and skill which has always distinguished him
in the defence of the interests of his nation, and will make the requisite claim
from this government; and we trust that the Captain General of Cuba will send, without
loss of time, a good vessel of war to conduct the criminals, with security, when
surrendered by this government.
We have just received a letter from Don Jose Ruiz in which he states that there are
many inaccuracies in the accounts which have been given to the public of this affair.
We expect to be favored with a true narrative of the occurrence, and we shall publish
it with pleasure, as soon as possible.
