View Document Frames
Richmond Enquirer, November 5, 1839, p.3
The Abolitionists.
Arthur Tappan and some of his fanatical brethren are using the slaves of the
Amistad as their cats’paws--They have taken out processes in their name for the purpose
of prosecuting Messrs. Ruiz and Montez, the Spanish masters, and bringing before
a Jury the question of their Liberty and damages for the injuries which the slaves
are alleged to have received. Two cases had been originally brought up before Judge
Inglis; and Signor Ruiz held to bail, and for want of it, confined in prison. It
seems that this vexatious course of prosecution is going on; and as one of the New
York papers states, “Another of the pirates has been made to take oath against Signor
Ruiz--and Judge Edwards held him to bail in $500. All this is a mere trick of the
abolitionists to worry these unfortunate gentlemen, and induce them to consent to
give up their property. If any will hold out a little longer, under this disgraceful
persecution, all their property, with damages, will be surrendered to them, and the
felons punished.”
Where is this fanaticism to end? Judge Inglis, in his Opinion, takes the ground,
that “If the affidavits on the part of the plaintiff are positive and precise as
to the injury inflicted, the defendants will not be discharged upon counter affidavits
denying the right of action, except in some extraordinary cases, where a summary
interposition would be justified by its appearing beyond all doubt on the face of
the papers, that there could be no recovery on the trial. The general rule however
is, that a Judge will not try the merits of the cause at Ch[a]mbers [word?] on affidavits.
In this point of view I cannot undertake to decide the question, whether the plaintiff’
is or is not the slave of the defendant, Ruiz. Singweth claims in his affidavitt
to be free, which is a matter directly put at issue in the opposing affidavits. The
decision of this point in favor of the defendants, would at once take away the whole
substratum of the plaintiff's action, as slave cannot have any remedies by civil
action against his master.”
Are we, then, to understand, that if a master in the Southern States claims his
slave in N. York, Arthur Tappan may employ some fanatical councillar to procure a
cross-affadavit from the slave, asserting his freedom, and claiming damages for his
detention; that then the master may be hurried before a State Judge, and be compelled
to give bail, or be sent to prison--and the whole case then sent before a prejudiced
and fanatical Jury? Is this the point to which these Abolitionists are aiming?
The treatment of the Spanish masters is unprecedented and outrageous. It must ultimately
bring additional odium upon the fanatics--or the rights of Southern masters are to
be subjected to a new and vexatious species of persecution. We call upon our friends
in the North to stay such proceedings.
