View Document Frames
"Adams' Argument," New York Journal of Commerce, Feb. 25, 1841.
Correspondence of the Journal of Commerce
THE CAPTIVES OF THE AMISTAD
Washington, February 25th, 1841.
Gentleman: The proceedings of the Court in this solemn case have been interrupted
by the solemn voice of death. One of the learned and honourable Judges of the court,
who sat yesterday in his place, listening with profound and patient attention to
the argument of a counsellor many yeats older than himself. reasoning eloquently
in behalf of justice on earth, has been summoned to his own dread account,
at the bar of eternal justice above. Judge Barbour, of Virginia, the seventh in rank
on the bench, died last night,--in his sleep it is probable, without a groan or a
struggle. The servant at his lodgings went at the usual hour this morning to the
rooms of the different Judges to call m to breakfast. As the Chief Justice was passing
the door of Judge Barbour's room, the man said to him, "Chief Justice, will
you please to come here, sir, I think Judge Barbour is dead." Judge Taney went
to the bed, and there saw his associate, lying on his side, as if in gentle sleep,
but dead and cold, with the exception of a slight remaining warmth at the chest.
Not a muscle was distorted, nor were the bedclothes in the slightest degree disturbed,
so that it is probable his heart ceased to beat at an instant, while he was asleep!
At the usual hour for opening the Court this morning, none of the Judges were seen
in the court room, which was already filled with persons come to hear the continuation
od Mr. Adams' speech. At length the Judges came in together, and their countenances
looked pale, distressed, and sorrowfful. As soon as they had taken their seats, the
Crier opened the Court in the usual form, and the Chief Justice addressed the gentleman
of the bar,--"Gentleman, a painful event has occures, Judge Barbour died suddenly
last night, and the Court is therefore adjourned until Monday." The Crier then
made proclamation to that effect, The Judges all rose, and retired again to their
private apartment, and the assembly withdrew. I did not expect an announcement of
so overwhelming a Providence in a manner so severely simple and subdued, but it struck
me as eminently appropriate for the Supreme Court of this nation.. It was
in keeping with the strictest propriety and suitableness. It was sublime.
As there will be nothing more for some days, perhaps your readers will be pleased
with a little account of Mr Adams' masterly analysis of the correspondence of the
Spanish Minister, which is the ground of the appearance of the United States as a
party in the case.
After having shown the absurdity of the pretext that the treaty afforded any ground
for the surrender of the Africans as merchandize, or as a part of the cargo of the
vessel, Mr. Adams proceeded to examine the other arguments urged by M. Calderon de
la Barca, upon the American Secretary of State, to induce him to send these unfortunate
men to Cuba to meet the justice of the Barracoons, one was, that if these men were
suffered to go unpunished after what they had done, it would greatly endanger the
safety of the island of Cuba, where the citizens of the United States have so extensive
a trade, and where numbers of them own properties, which they cultivate by the labor
of slaves. I submit to your honors, said Mr. A. that the Spanish minister has no
right to appeal to the Courts of this country to pass a particular sentence between
parties before them, on the consideration of their personal interest, or that of
other American citizens , in slave property in Cuba. What will become of the liberties
of this country, if our Courts are to pass sentence affecting individual rights,
upon consideration of the effect their decision may have upon the interests of American
citizens in all parts of the world where they are scattered, for if it applies inthe
case of American interests in Cuba, it is equally applicable in regard to interests
in China, or Hindostan, or the Fejee Islands. It is no proper argument for the Spanish
Minister to address to the American Secretary of State. It was undoubtedly calculated
and designed to appeal strongly to that sympathy, which the Secretary speaks
of, and which he says had well nigh become national. It was well calculated to excite
and influence the Secretary of State, not only in regard to supposed American interests
in Cuba, but perhaps also in regard to interests that might be supposed to be nearer
home. But was it JUSTICE? Was it a ground on which Courts will decide causes? I trust
not.
The Spanish minister proceeds to say, that the influence of capital punishment
inflicted in this country, which he seems not to have entertained a doubt would be
promptly dealt out to these Africans, would not be attended with the same salutary
effects as if inflicted in Cuba. The indemnification, says he, which I officially
ask in that case to the owners of the slaves, would be but a slender compensation
, for although the property of individuals might be unimpaired, the satisfaction
due to public justice is not accorded. And that, said Mr. A., is the reason why the
President of the United States was to issue his lettres de cachet, and send
these unfortunate individuals to Cuba. There are some other passages in this letter,
said Mr. A., which I had rather your Honors would read when you are together in your
apartment for consulation. I hope the Court will read them, but I had rather not
trust myself to comment upon them as they deserve/ Your honors, in the pursuit of
JUSTICE, will read them, and will ssee why I abstain from doing it.
The Spanish Minister, concludes with referring to the readiness with which the Spanish
authorities would accord to citizens of the United States any fugitive slaves which
might be found in the island of Cuba. And was this, said Mr. A., an argument to be
addressed to the Secretary of State of the United States? Is it upon these principles
that this case is to be decided? Is it by the offer of such an equivalent that our
Government is to be persuaded to deliver over these unhappy men? " If you will
deliver these negroes to me, for whose blood all the slave traders of Cuba thyirst,
and any slave from the Southern States shall take refuge in the island of Cuba will
be readily given up." What is this argument, as addressed to to the Secretary
of State? It is that it would be a easy thing for the Governor -General of Cuba to
seize a fugitive slave, or pretended slave from the South, and put him on board a
vessel, and send him to one of the Southern States. It may be so. It appears from
one of the authorities read by the learned Attorney General, that this Governor has
real power, that he is in fsct equal to the king, and it may be easy for him to do
such a thing to any man, black or whit6e, slave of free. But is that to be done by
the President of the United States, or to be required of him? If it is Ishould hope
he would wait for some more explicit stipulations than appear in the treaty of 17j95.
It was quite enough, one would think, to require the President of the United States
to keep these men safely, and to send them back speedily, without making this--what
shall I call it? this offer, to send back the slaves of the South if the President
will deliver up these Africans to the authorities of Cuba.
Now, may it please your Honors, we are to inquire what was it the duty of the Secretaty
of State to so on receiving such a demand? What did he do ? His first act was to
misrepresent the demand, and write to the District Attorney of the United States
for Connecticut, directing him to pursue a claim for these negroes to be delivered
up as property, because the Spanish Minister had demanded them to be given up under
the treaty. That is what he did, when it is apparent that the Spanish Minister had
made no such demand, had he ordered the District Attorney to take care that no
(indicepherable)
might not be sufficient to effect the other branch of his instructions, to wit,
to prevent the negroes from being placed " beyond the control of the Executive,"
he added another claim, of his own accord, as far as appears, that if the Court should
find them not to be slaves, they should be placed at the disposal of the President
for a violation of the laws against the slave trade. That was the execution of his
order to take care that no Court should place them beyond the control of the
Executive. In a subsequent stage of the proceedings, the District Attorney filed
another libel, in which he left out this alternative demand. Why was this ? I can
conceive of no reason but that he had been so instructed by the Secretary of State.
These instructions do not appear in the printed Documents communicated by the President
to Congress. But it does not follow that no such instructions were given. That Document
is not a full communication of all the papers in the case as I know, of my own
knowledge. The resolution calling for the papers contained the usual exception of
papers that cannot be published cosistently with the public interest, and under that
exception, papers were kept back. The amount is, however, that the Executive
did not choose to hold itself responsible for that alternative demand. This appears
for the bringing of this appeal by the United States. What has the United States
appealed from? The District Attorney knew that libel, founded on the claim of the
Spanish Minister, falsified as that claim was by the Secretary, was not sufficient
to keep these Africans from being placed beyond the control of the Executive, and
he therefore inserted the other count.
Well, the District Court examined the case, and dissapated every pretention that
these negroes could be held as merchandise. The only ladino , concerning whom
there was any pretence that he was a slave, the Court decreed should be given up.
We do not appeal from that decree, although I confess. had I been of counsel in that
stage of the proceedings, I should have been much disposed to appeal, on the ground
that there is no article in the treaty which by any possible construction can apply
to persons as merchandize, or that had any thing to do with the restoration of this
boy, and the decree was not warrented by law or treaty. Indeed, the District Judge
seems to have felt the same difficulty, for he inserted in his decree that the boy
was desirous of returning, and as volenti non fit injuria, I reconcile my
mind to that part of the decision, for I could certainly have no possible motive
to interfere with the wishes of the boy to return. And now, so strange, so singular
is everthing that happens in connection with this case. I understand that the boy
has not returned, but remains now in the custody of the officers of the court! And
I feel bound, as an individual, to protest against his being delivered up to the
representatives of his late master on any grounds arising out of the treaty, which
I maintain, has no application whatever to the case.
And now, what answer ought the Secretary of State to have returned to these demands!
It was his duty instantaneously to answer the Spanish Minister by telling him that
every one of his demands was utterly inadmissible and that the President of the United
Strates had not it in his power to do any one of all the things he had required.
He would not deliver the ship to her owner, and there was no duty of the United States
to dispose of the vessel in that manner. As to the question of salvage, that depended
on the court, before which the case was pending for trial according to the law. The
proclomation required of the President, or the declaration that no court of the United
States had authority to try the case was not only inadmissible, but an offensive
demand, it was calling upon the President to usurp a control over the judiciary which
he could not exercize but by the overthrow of the whole Constitution, generally and
in all particular, all the rights of the nation and all the rights of the States.
And as to the delivering up of the negroes, that was equally inadmissible, for the
President has no such powere to arrest or deliver up any person whatever. But this
demand is insignificant, in comparison with the other, that the President should
himself send them beyound the sea for trail. He should have called upon the Spanish
Ambassader to name an instance in the history of nations, where such a demand had
been made by any government of another and independent nation. To make the President
of the United States, not the head of a nation, but a constable, a catchpole-- a
character not possible to be named in gentlmanlylanguage! Yet, that is what this
demand makes of the President of the United States. And the Secretary should have
set the Spanish Minister right with regard to the tribunal before which these questions
were pending, by showing him that it was not a State Court, but a Court of the United
States, sitting in the District of Connecticut. And now, from that day to this, The
Secretary of State has never answered one of these demands, nor arrested one of these
misapprehensions, nor asserted the rights and the honor of the nation against one
of these most extraordinary, inadmisissible and insolent demands. He has degraded
the country, in the face of the whole civilized world, not only by allowing these
demands to remain unanswered, but by proceeding, I am obliged to say, throughout
the whole transaction, as if the Executive was earnestly desirous to comply with
everyone of the demands. In the very misrerepresentations of those demands, in his
instructions to the District Attorney, under which this case is brought here,
why does he take such a course? The Spanish Minister pronounced the Court before
which the Secretary brought the question, an incompetent tribunal, and this position
has been maintained by the Legation of Spain down to this very month, that a letter
of Chev. d'Argaiz officially protests against the jurisdiction of the Courts, before
which the Secretary professes to be prosecuting the claim of this very Minister!
Why does the Spanish Minister persist in such inadmissible pretentions? It is because
they were not met in limine in a proper manner, because he was not told instantly,
without the delay of an hour, that this government could never admit such claims,
and would be offended if they were repeated, or any portion of them. Yet all these
claims, monstrous, absurd, and inadmissible as they are, , have been urged and repeated
for eighteen months, upon our Government, and an American Secretary of State evades
answering any of them!-- evades it to such an extent that the Spanish Minister
reproces him for not meeting his arguments!
