View Document Frames
Richmond Enquirer, September 27, 1839. Trial Proceedings
RICHMOND, FRIDAY, SEPT. 27
THE AMISTAD
This case is postponed till November next. The negroes have been discharged from
a criminal prosecution--and the only question now is, whether they are to be considered
as property, and how that property is to be disposed of? To try this issue,
the case is transferred to the District Court. The following is a sketch of the points
that have been made, and the decisions that have been pronounced. The Court seem
to have acted with great firmness and discretion--and with a due regard to the laws
and institutions of their own country. Tappan & Co. are, of course, much chagrined
by the result of the investigation. They expected to establish principles of jurisprudence
in our Courts, which, would not only have cut at the Slave Trade from Africa, (in
which every American concurs) but to have shaken every idea of property in slaves,
as they already exist under our own institutions. The question it is presumed, will
now be, according to the precedent in the case of the Antelope, would these persons
be slaves in Cuba--and if so, is not the Executive bound to give them up under the
Treaty?
THE AFRICANS OF THE AMISTAD
Hartford, Friday, Sept. 20,
Half past one o'clock
The whole of this day has been taken up with the Amistad case. Mr. Sedgwick read
the reply to the return of the Marshal, and the affidavit of Messrs. Hanson and Ferry,
that the girls are native Africans--are, as they suppose, between 7 and 10--and are
but recently from Africa. Mr. Baldwin then addressed the Court in an elaborate and
very powerful argument of 2 1/2 hours. The Grand Jury came in while he was speaking,
and requested to be charged by the Court on this subject, which was under their consideration.
Judge Thompson said he could not charge them without a statement of facts, &c.
The Jury retired, and came in again with a written statement of facts, which was
read by the foreman. The Court informed them that at the opening of the Court in
the afternoon, they would give their opinions as to the jurisdiction of the Court.
After Mr.Baldwin had concluded, Mr. Ingersoll spoke three-quarters of an hour on
the opposite side. Mr. Staples rose in reply, and after speaking a quarter of an
hour, the Court adjourned for dinner.
The Court room is crowded. The Governor of the State, the clergymen of the city,
and many aged and respectable citizens present.
Friday Afternoon.--Judge Thompson addressed the Jury, stating that, with
regard to the criminal charge against the prisoners, neither this Court,
nor any other Court in the U. S., nor the Grand Jury, had any jurisdiction. The Amistad
had been a Spanish coasting vessel; and a crime committed on board of her was the
same, with regard to jurisdiction, as if the crime had been committed on the Island
of Cuba. In order to give a Court of the U. S. jurisdiction, the crime must be against
some law of the U. S. or the law of Nations. He therefore instructed them that they
could not find an indictment. The Grand and Petty Juries, having no other business,
were therefore discharged.--N. Y. Jour of Com.
The following letter, from the correspondent of the New York Courier and Enquirer,
contains the history of the proceedings of the court down to Saturday evening
:
Hartford, Saturday, Sept. 21, 1839
"On the sitting of the Court this morning, Judge Thompson said he was not prepared
to dispose of the question that occupied the attention of the Court yesterday, finally;
and therefore nothing he now said should be considered as other than incidental remarks
upon the arguments that had been offered to the Court. The case was brought before
it under very peculiar circumstances, and was one of very great difficulty--undoubtedly,
the Court was much embarrassed as to how to dispose of it. Let it be distinctly understood,
however, that the parties brought up on the habeas corpus stood perfectly discharged
from the accusation of criminal offence. The mere question is, what is to be done
with them?--and the course which the Court pursues with respect to those brought
up on habeas corpus is perhaps that to be adopted as to all the other Africans now
in confinement. But the simple question now under consideration was, whether parties
so brought up were rightfully in the possession of the District Court; and if they
were, this court had no right to take them out of such possession. It might be full
of injustice, and pregnant with very evil consequences, to dispose of these important
questions in this summary way, upon a writ of habeas corpus. However abhorrent to
our feelings it might be, to contemplate these human beings as property, the court
were not at liberty to indulge in any sympathies with reference to that matter. They
could only be governed by the law on the point. It was contended by some, that there
could be no property in human flesh; yet it was impossible to shut our eyes to the
fact, that slavery, or the right to control the persons of others, was not only recognized
by foreign Courts, but by those of our own country--and men, human beings, under
the name of slaves, had been returned to claimants, through the intervention of the
constituted representatives of the States to which such claimants belonged, as property;
as in the case of the Antelope, reported in 10 Wheaton, p.66--for it was on that
ground and that alone that they were so returned.
This court has a right to entertain the question, and to inquire into the
grounds of the right of property; and after repeated decisions to this effect,
by the Supreme Courts, it will not do for this Court to say, "we won't ascertain
the question of property." The property (for so we will technically call
it in the present instance) is in the possession of the District Court; and
we are to inquire whether it is rightfully in such possession. Persons of the African
race are recognized by law as property, and the question therefore in this
case, is only whether the possession by the District Court is rightful. Under the
peculiar circumstances of this case, his Honor said the Court were desirous to have
another argument of counsel, confined entirely to the point, "whether the District
Court had jurisdiction in this case," and proposed to counsel to take that question
into consideration, and address the Court on it in the afternoon.
Mr. Ingersoll suggested that a brief should be prepared and submitted to his Honor
for his decision.
This course was objected to by Mr. Staples and Mr. Baldwin, as very inconvenient.
Counsel then retired to consult, and were to state the result at two o'clock.
Afternoon.--At the afternoon sitting, Mr. Ingersoll, who was counsel for the
libellants, repeated his wish that a brief should be prepared and submitted to his
honor, in which all the cases on the point should be cited.
Judge Thompson said the case was a vital one; but it was desirable if possible to
dispose of it.
Mr. Staples had made inquiry and he was satisfied of the necessity of going on.
Judge Thompson--"Then we must go on."
Mr. Baldwin then recapitulated the facts of the case, and contended that the Court
of Admiralty had nothing to do with them but as property, and it was incumbent on
the party applying to that Court, to prove as a preliminary measure, that they were
so. The Marshal in this instance had exceeded his authority. Property taken on the
high seas may be libelled in the most convenient Court, but property taken in waters
in any particular district must be libelled in the Court of the district in which
it was taken, and all legal proceedings must be prosecuted in that Court. Don Pedro
Montes files an Admiralty process on the 17th of September inst., against these persons
as property , they being at the time on land; but they could only be tried
before a common law Court, by a jury--and the same reasoning applied to Ruiz.
Mr. B. closed in an energetic appeal, praying their discharge. He said they would
be taken care of (as it was right they should be) by the State of Connecticut.
Mr. Hungerford and Mr. Ingersoll followed on behalf of the Spanish claimants, and
argued very earnestly in support of the jurisdiction of the District Court.
The District Attorney succeeded in support of his libel on behalf of the Executive.
The case closed with the address of Mr. Staples, which was not concluded until 7
o'clock.
The Court then adjourned to 8 o'clock on Monday morning, when judgment will be given.
HARTFORD, Sept. 23d.
The decision of Judge Thompson, concurred in by Judge Judson, was read this morning
in the presence of a large number of persons. The Court opened at 8 o'clock, and
even before this hour the Court Room was thronged to overflowing. A more interested
audience--judging from the earnest attention of those present, were never assembled
together. No one,--the Judges excepted,--knew what the decision was to be before
the Court opened. The opinion, therefore, as furnished me by a friend who reported
almost verbatim, excited mingled satisfaction and disappointment. The Abolitionists
expected that the Africans would be set at liberty. The Spaniards are satisfied,
and are content to leave the question at present in the hands of their counsel.
DECISION OF JUDGE THOMPSON
On the opening of the Circuit Court, Monday, Sept. 23d, Judge Thompson gave his decision
with respect to the application of the prisoners' counsel, to have the Africans discharged
under the writ of habeas corpus--and denied the motion. He said the question before
the Court was simply as to the jurisdiction of the District Court over this subject
matter. He regretted that the case had not been held up for further consideration,
and that he had so little opportunity to examine the various important questions
that are involved in it, with that thoroughness and deliberation that was desirable.
He regretted this the more, as the case is a very peculiar and complicated one. It
was one also difficult to be understood by the public. He could not be insensible
to the fact, that the feelings of the community were deeply involved in the question,
and he feared there might be misapprehensions of the real questions to be disposed
of by the Court. It is possible, he said, that there may be some misrepresentation.
He would, therefore, have preferred that time should have been allowed for him to
give a written opinion. But the counsel having thought it advisable, he did not say
it was not excusable, to call upon the Court to dispose of the case now, he was compelled,
though much against his wishes, to dispose of it in the best way he could.
The question to be decided now is not as to the ultimate rights of either
party--but it is whether the District Court can take cognizance of the subject
matter that grows out of this case.
(The OPINION of the Court will be published in full hereafter.)
Its Conclusion is substantially as follows:
"There may be an impression here, that because slavery is not tolerated in Connecticut,
that the right of these Spaniards should not be investigated. The Court, however,
must be governed by the laws of the United States, and not by the laws of the State
of Connecticut. Our form of Government recognized the right to import slaves up to
the year 1808. It is true the Constitution does not use that language, but it recognizes
the right to a certain period, and declares until then it was a lawful importation.--The
Constitution also provides for the recovery of persons that may escape from one State
into another where service is due. It goes even beyond this and interdicts the States
from passing laws that oppose claimants from taking fugitive persons in the free
States. Should any State pass such laws, they would be absolutely void. We must look
at things as they are. The Court feel bound, therefore to say that there is no
ground upon which they can entertain the motion under the writ of habeas corpus.
"They fear that some misapprehension exists in the public mind as to
the effect and ground on which the case has been disposed by the Grand Jury, upon
the directions of the Court. The question now disposed of has not been affected by
what previously took place--. The only matter settled previously was, that there
had been no criminal offence cognizable by the courts of the United States. If the
offence of murder has been committed on board a foreign vessel, with a foreign crew
and with foreign papers, this is not an offence against the laws of the United States.
It is an offence against the laws of the country to which the vessel belonged.--The
Courts of the United States have, in such cases, no jurisdiction; --but if the offence
be against the laws of the nations, this Court would have jurisdiction. A murder
committed, as in the case of the captain of the Amistad, is not a crime against the
laws of nations,--were the crime piracy even it would not be a crime against the
laws of nations, connected as it is with the slave trade."
The Court said that as they perceived there were note-takers present they hoped they
would be careful to make a true representation of the decision. The Court does not
undertake to decide that these persons have no right to their freedom, but leave
that matter in litigation in the District Court, subject to appeal. And for reasons
assigned deny this motion.
One of the counsels for the prisoners then asked the Court, if they meant to express
the opinion that a foreigner coming here with a slave can call upon the U. S. Courts
to enforce the claim of the foreigner to the slave. Judge Thompson in reply, said
he did not wish to decide now upon the abstract question. As a judge he did not feel
called upon to decide it. The Court was then adjourned sine die.
The District Court was opened. The judge said he should direct that the United States
Attorney should repair to Montauk Point, in the Revenue Cutter, with a gentleman
on the other side to investigate the facts, ascertain where the seizure was actually
made, &c.; that the Court would be adjourned to meet in this city on the third
Tuesday in November next; and that meantime it would be the duty of the Marshal to
see that the prisoners were comfortably situated, provided with clothes suited to
the season, that they had proper and sufficient food, medical attendance, &c.
The Court would, it is presumed, allow the prisoners to be discharged on giving bail,
but as it must be on an appraisement their counsel would not consent to it.
The prisoners will probably be remanded to the jail in New Haven.
______________
