The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-09-28
The Amistad Prisoners.

The Amistad Prisoners.
Judge Thompson having decided on Friday, in
his instructions to the Grand Jury, that no Grim
inal charge existed against any of the Amisad
prisoners, of which the Court had any jurisdc-
ton, writ of habeas corpus was sued out in be-
half of all these prisoners, and Saturday after
noon they were brough! into Court.
1t seemed to be taken for granted after what had
dropped from Judge Judson, in the course of the
argument on Friday, in the case of the three chill
dren, that the claim of Captain Gedney for sal
wage, so far at least as the Africans were concern
ed, could not be sustained With respect to the
other two claims, under color of which the Marsh
all held these Africans prisoners, viz the libes
of Montez and Ruez, claiming these negroes as
their property; and the libel of the District Attor-
ney, setting out--6rst the claim of the Spanish
Minister, and calling upon the Court to decide the
validity of it; and secondly, alleging that these
Africans are free persons, brought to this country
in violation of the laws prohibiting the African
slave trade, alleging that they ought to be restor-
ed to their own country, and praying the Court
to take the necessary steps for enabling the Pres
ident of the United States to send them back ;
with respect to these two libelS, and the claim of
the Marshal to the custody The negroes, by vir-
tue of the process issued thereon Judge Thomp-
son said that if the District Court had in fact,
jurisdiction over the claims thus brought before it.
he would not, upon a writ of habeas corpus, fore
stall or interfere with the decision which the Dis
trict Court might make upon question thus legal
ly brought before it. If that decision should be
wrong, there was remedy by way ofappeal, first
to the Circuit and then to the Supreme Court
Whatever the opinion of the Court might be as
to the ultimate decision of the case, or however alb
horrent it might be to the feelings ofthe Court to
keep these persons in prison. OF to view them as
property, still that question of property was ques-
ton to be decided, and if the District Court had
jurisdiction of that question: then it was proper
that trial of the question should be had there.
P. S. We have just learned, that on Monday
morning, Judge Thompson delivered the opinion
Of the Circuit Court, on the habeas corpus oues-
ticn, deciding that the District Court, under its
general admiralty powers, had jurisdiction of the
question whether The Africans were property or
not, and if property, to whom they belonged.
The Circuit Court that ground declined to in
terfere, and would have this case to be tried in
the first instance by the District Court.
Judge Thompson observed, that if it should
turn out, that in point of fact, the seizure was
made within the Southern District of New York,
then the trial Of the questions in dispute must
first be had in that District and the District Court
of Connecticut would be ousted Of its iursdic-
ton.
The jurisdiction of the District Court seems
to have been sustained entirely on the authority
of the case Of the antelope. The case of the An
telope was this. She was Spanish SLAYER, & was
illegally seized by an American cruiser & brought
into the United States, against the will of the per-
sons in possession. 1t was contended that al
though the capture was illegal, and the ship must
be restored, yet the slaves on board having been
brought into the United States were free, and
could not be given up to their former owners. But
the Court decided that they would put matters
back into the condition in which they stood, prior
to the illegal interference the part efthe Amer
lean cruiser. Therefore they gave up the slaves.
The facts in the case ofthe AmiStad are totally
different That the ship was taken possession of
by Capt. Gedney, at the cypress instance and re-
quest of Montez and Ruiz the former owner ofthe
slaves, and was brought into the jurisdiction ofthe
Unietd States, at their desire. The case then,
so far as Montez and Ruiz are concerned, stands
upon the same ground as if the vessel had been
brought into New London by the persons on board,
in which case there would be no pretence for any
interference on the part of the District Court.
If, in the present case, the Court should under
lake to act upon this same principle of status IN
quo, which governed the Antelope case, it would
be much more proper to deliver up Montez and
Ruez to the Africans than the Africans TO Mon
ez and Ruez. At the time when the American
Interference commenced, the Africans were no lon
ger slaves They had indicated their liberty,
md on the other hand, had reduced Montez and
Ruez to condition of servitude.
The principle, certainly, of restoring things to
he state in which they stood, when the American
Interference commenced, never can justify the de-
livery of the Africans to the Spanish claimants. :
THE hearing before the District Court wilcome
m in November.]
From the Boston courier,