Star.
London, England, 1810-08-06 00:00:00

CASE OF THE A NIEDIE—•-.JAMIS Jn11113014, MASTOL

This was a vessel under American c.-Lours, %hit
slaves from Africa, captured in Dece:oher, 1807, iq
the West Indies, and carried into Tortola. The,
claimant pretended that she was bound to Chao !esti.%
South Carolina, where the importation (4- slaves crn.
tinned to be lawful to the end of that ear; Ina ;hat
having been detained on the coast, and there bcinz
no prospect of reaching CliarlcSlMl 4clork: I. 1.4 day
of January, 1808, the period app, i:red tor tht ct
don of the Slave Trade in cvery p trt of the tr,,lted
States, by a law of the General Con4p.s.:, the M.ater
of necessity bore away for e!.e Island of Cuba, acts
to wait directions from his owners.

It was contended, on the nth-r hand, by Ole cap.
tor, that this statement was a m.:re pretence, an] th..t,
in truth, the original plan of the vovago wai a deal.
nation to Cuba, which was mil twfui tinder the Arne.
rican laws, long previuus to their genet-41 abulitton
of the Slave Trade.

Admitting, however, the case so to be, it was rre•
nuonsly contended for the Clamant, that a British
Conn of Prize lee! no right to take any cognizance
of Americ n municipal law, and that as no bellige.
rent right of this country bad been violated, the pro.
perty ought to be restored to the neutral owner. A
series of precedents seemA to support this doetrim
The sbip was condemned at Tortola, and the en-
slaved Ali icons were, according to our Abolitirn Act,
restored to their freedom ; but the Claimant appealed,
and the liberty of the Africans, as well as the prnpeety
of the ship, depended on tl:e issue of this appeal.
The case Was solemnly argued in March last, and
as, in the opinion of the Court, it turned on the new
question of the elect of the American and Bsitish
Abolicion Acts on this specks of contraband com-
merce, when brought before a Court of Prize, the case,
on account of its importance, has since stood over for
judgment. Several other cases of American SW*
shios have also iNtood user, as depending on the same
ge::eral question.
On the above day the judgment of the Court was
delivered by Sir Wit. GRANT, the Master of the Rolls,
nearly in the following terms
• " This ship must be considered as being employed
at the time of capture in carrying slaves from the
coast of Africa to a Spanish Colony. We think that
the was evidently the original plan and purprise of
the voyage,, o.withstandingthe pretence set up to ye 1
t! e true in-ention. The Claimant, however, who if
an A mer:c tn, complains of the capture, and demands
from us the res itiition of prop( ny( f he .11edges
that he La; been unjustly dispossessed. In all the.
former cases of this kiad, which have come helot e this
Court, the Slave Trade was liable to considerations
very diiferent from those which belong to it now. It
had at that time been prohibited (as far as respected
carrying O.:yes to the colonies of fOreign nations) hr
America, but by our own laws it was gill allowed.
It appeared to us, theiel we, difficult to consider the
prohibitory law of America, in any other light than
as one of tilose municipal regulatiens ()la foreign state
of which this Court could not take any cognizance.
But by the alteration, which has since taken place,
the question sands on different grounds, and is open
to the anilication of very different principles. The
Slave Trade has since been totally abolished by r'
country, and our Legislature has pronounced it to be
contrary to the FrincTiss of j,•stiet: and kimanu).
Whatever we might think as individuals before, tie
could not, sitting :is J:idgrs in a British Court of Jus-
tice, regard the trade us that light, while our own
laws permitted it. But we can now assert that it. 's
trade cannot, abstractedly speaking, have a legitimato
existence.

When I say abstractedly speaking, I mean that
this country has i.o right to controul any forcign Le-
gislature that may think fit to dissent from this dm.
trine, and to permit to its own subjects the prosecu-
tion of ti:is trade ; but we have now a right to Arra
that prima peie the trade is illegal, and thus to throw
on claimants the barthtn of proof that, in respect of
them, by the authority of their own laws, it is other-
wise. As the case now stands, we think we are en-
titled t 6 say, that a cl itnant can have no right upca
principles of Uliversal law to claim the restitution its
a Prize Court of human beings carried as his dims.
lir must skew vine right that has been violated by
the capture, some property of which he has been dis-
possessed, and to which he ought to be restored. In
this case the laws of the claimant's country allow ti
no right of property such as he claims. There can,
therefbre, be no right to restitution. The consequence
is, that the judgment must be affirmed."
We congratulate the friends f the oppressed Afri-
cans on this important and most satisfactoty judg-
ment. It gives a death-blow to the most active eon-
traband dealers in human blood on the Coast of
Africa, and removes one of the greatest obstacles to
the effectual execution of our own laws for the abo-
lition of the Slave Trade; for, be it observed, that
not the subjects of America only, but of Sweden.
and, in short, of all States, which have not expressl;
legalized this trade, :tie equally affected by the ope-
ration of the principle laid down by the

TUE CUURsE
Amsterdam, 33 9 2 U
Ditto at sight, 32 2
Rotterdam, c. f.lO 0 2 U
Hamburgb, 30 5 21..0
Altoua, 30 6 21, U
Paris 1 day's da. 21 1 Uv.
Ditto, 2 Us. 21
Bourdeaux, de. 21 5
Madrid, • 44 Effect.
C4diz, 411
Bilboa 41 Effect.
Rio Janeiro 'l2, Mats
May Doublet

NC
Palermo, 123 Pence pet ea
Leghorn, 5$
Genoa, 34
N'enice, n. C. s Ltv. Resole
ineffective part. stet.
Naples, 44
Lisbon, 64
I Opr.rto, fibi
Dublin, 9f
Cork, I of
New Dollars, ss. 314
00, Gibraltar 34i.
us, 6S ks. Od. 44k_