Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1839-10-04
VOL. XITI--No. GAL

party 10 dissatisfied, the Court can institute
inquiry TO ascertain the exact place. but
the more regular course is for the partv
dissatisfied to interpose plea TO the juris-
CIctloD OF the Court, and then the District
Court must institute an inquiry TO ascer.
tain where the seizure was made. Il ia
not competent then for this Court. at the
present time, to say the District Court has
no jurisdiction in the case. Consequently
this Court cannot now pass upon the cues.
ton as 10 the properly-,hat matter belongs
to the District Court. Should either party
be dissatisfied with the decision of that
Court. an appeal can be taken to The Cir
cult Court, and afterwards to the Supreme
Court of the United States. Meantime
the parties must be put TO their pleas in
the District Court, IN order that oil the
facts, &c. may be put on record.
II has been said this is a question of
LIBERTY, end therefore that this Court
ought TO decide the case in summary and
prompt manner But, in the judgment of
the Court, this ought to have no influence
in the decision The situation Of the
prisoners is such that they must be taken
care of by somebody. They DID not come
here voluntarily. 1t is not the case, there.
fore, OF persons coming here Of their own
accord, and being taken up BY other per-
sons against their will. If the District
Court has jurisdiction OF the schooner,
they have jurisdiction OF the persons of
these Africans, aud they ATE bound to pro-
vide necessarles for them. They can pro.
vide tor them as well as any other persons.
The case seems to have been argued on
the part Of the prisoners as if they ought
to be discharged if the Court has no iurIs-
dIclion This is not so. IF it should be
decided that he District Court here has no
jurisdiction, they can decide also that the
cause be submitted 10 the District Court Of
New York. TIE Court would. in that
case, send the vessel and cargo. and every
thing apperiainng, 10 that Court. The
prisoners would not be discharged. but sent
also to the District Court Of New York.
No benefit would arise to them in being
removed from this 10 another District. 1t
's therefore matter Of no consequence to
the prisoners whether the question is tried
here or in the District of New York.
1t has been SAID that the subsequent pro.
ceedngs IN fling these IIbels and claims
here, were without authority. But If the
case is within the jurisdiction Of the Dis.
trio! Court. other I'bels could be filed. 1t
is true that If original llbels have been
filed in order to bring the matter within
the Jurisdiction of this Court the proceed,
ings may be irregular. IF there is any
iHegu'arlly it can be corrected by filing q
new libe|.-the case being in the possession
Of the District Court, however, it is bound
to receive claims OF any body. This court
cannot decide whether these Spaniards
have right to these persons. or whether
they should be put in The possession of The
President Of the U. S. These questions
are not now regularly before the court.
They must come up hereafter, and the
court must dispose Of them. The courts
Of the U. s. have taken cognizance Of cases
analogous 10 this. The question OF iuris.
dlcton is preliminary question, and the
court should not decide questions of alb
stracl right. The courts Of the U. States
have taken cognlzance Of cases where
foreigners claimed tho persons of slaves:
but this is the first instance where q writ Of
habeas corpus has been applied for. and
therefore there are no other items that
throw light upon the subject. 1t has never
been made question whether they were
instantly free on being brought into the
United States. The case of the Antelope
is directly in point. The Spanish and
Portuguese Consuls claimed these subjects
as property. the court said they mus.
show their title.
There may be an impression here. that
because savery is not tolerated in Connec.
t,cut, that the right Of these Spanards
should not be investigated. The court.
however. must DO governed by the laws of
the United States, and not by the laws of
The State of Connecticut. Our form Of
Government recognised The RICH, to import
slaves up to the year 1903. 1t ia true the
Constitution does not use that language,
but It recognizes The right to a certain
period, and declares that till then il was
lawful importation. The Constitution also
provides for the recovery Of persons that
may escape from one State into another
where service ls due. II goes even beyond
this, and interdicls The State from passing
laws that oppose claimants from taking
fugitive persons in the free States. Should
any S'ste pass such laws. they would be
absolutely void. We must look at things
as they are. The Court feel bound, there.
fore, to say that there is no ground upon
,ohich they can entertain the motion under
the ,orit Of habeas corpus.
Ihey fear that some apprehension
exists in the public mind as to the effect
and ground on which The case has been
disposed Of 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 u. S. If the offence or
murder has been committed on board q
foreign vessel, with foreign crew and
with foreign papers. this is not an offence
against the laws of the u. s. II 10 an
offence against The laws Of the country to