Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1839-10-04
Correspondence of the N. Y. Express.I
THE AFRICANS.
HARTFORD. Sent. 9,

curfeu IN Ov Judge JUdsOn, was read this
morning in the presence Of one or two
hundred persons. The Court opened at 8
o'clock. and even before this hour the Court
Room was thronged 10 overlooking. A
more interested audience. Judging from
the earnest attention of those present.
were never assembled together. No one,
the Judges excepted, knew wiTat the
decision was to be before the Court opened.
The opinion. therefore, which as furnished
me by friend who reported it almost
Uerbatim, excited mingled satisfaction aud
disappointment. The Abolltonisls expec.
ted that the Africans would be sc, at
liberty. The Spanards, are so far satisfied
aud are content 10 leave the question at
present in the hands Of the Spanish Minis
ter.
Decision Of Judge Thompson.
On the opening Of the Circuit Court,
Monday September 23d, Judge Thompson
gave his decision with respect to the Il ppli,
cation OF the prisoners counsel. TO have
the Africans discharged under the writ OF
habeus corpus--and denied The motion He
said the question before the Court was
simply as to the jurisdiction Of the District
Cont over this subject matter. lie 70
GREETED that the case had not been held up
tor further consideration. and that he had
so little opportunity 10 examine The various
important questions that are involved in it.
with that thoronghness and dehbera,ion
that was desirable. He regretted this the
more. as the case is very peculiar and
| complicated one. IL WAS one also difficult
to be understood by the public. He could
but be insensibe TO the fact that tho feel
lngs OF the community were deeply invol
we'd IN the question:. and he found there
might be misapprehension of the real
questions TO be disposed Of by the Court.
1t is possible. he said, tina, there may be
| some misrepresentation. Flo would there.
fore have preferred that time should have
been allowed for him TO give q correct
opinion. But the counsel have thought it
| advisable, he did not say it was not excusa
BILE, to call upon the Court to dispose Of
| the case now, he was compelled, thong h
much against his wishes, to dispose of it in
the best way he could.
The question 10 be decided no,o, is nat as
to The ultimate rights Of either pariy.-bu,
II is whether the District Court can take
| cognzance OF the subject matter that
grows out OF this case. In order to ascer
tain this. we must recur to the laws of the
U. 5. The case has been placed before
the Court on the abstract right of holding
human beings in bondage, or on the gene.
RAJ question Of slavery. The Court is not
called upon here to determine this abstrac,
question. 1t is sufficient to say that the
Constitution Of the United States, although
| The term OF slavery is not used. and the
laws of the United States do recognize the
right OF one man to have the control OF
| the labor of another man. The laws of
the country are founded upon this princi
pie. They recognize this kind of right.
Whatever private motives the Court may
have, or whatever may be their feelings on
| this subject, they are not 10 be brO't INTO
view in deciding upon this question. They
must give The same construction TO the
laws of the land, sitting in this Stale, as
they would were they sitting in Virginia.
II Is the province and the duty ofthe Court
to determine what the laws are, and not
what It might be desirable they should be.
My feelings, said Judge Thompson. are
personally as abhorrent to the system OF
slavery as those of any man here. but
must on my oath. pronounce what the laws
are on this subject. Tho true question
then is as 10 the law. and not as to anv OF
the questions involved in the case The
supple question to determine is as to the
right OF the District Court Of Conneclicu,
to take cognizance of the matter.
Under the laws Of the United States all
seizures in District are TO be taken notice
of IN that District where the seizures are
made. The important question Is always
as 10 the place o: seizure. and the question
always turns upon that; If seizure is
made within the limits Of a State the iuris
dlction OF the District Court is local. II it
is made on the high seas, any District
Court may take cognzance Of the matter.
Where then was the seizure made in this
case' II seems to be agreed by the coun.
sci on both sides that the seizure was
actually made in the District of N. York.
If that be the case this District Court has
no jurisdiction of it whatever. But if the
seizure was in fact made on the high seas,
this District Court has jurisdiction. Judge
I. said he had supposed. at first, that The
seizure was in fact made in the District OF
New York, but when he came to examine
the matter he found it was not SO. Lieut..
Gedney, in his libel, states no such thing.
He says he was on a survey within the
State Of New York, but he does not say
that he actually discovered the schooner
Amstad within that District. and that he
made the seizure within The District Of N.
York. All the evidence before the Court
Is what is asserted in The libel. The vessel,
it seems, was taken Off Montauk Point.
The Grand Jury, in their statement. say it
was mile distant from the shore.-lf this
be correc, it was a seizure upon the high
seas, and therefore the matter is r,ghttulv
before the Court for this District.
In the absence Of absolute certainty on
this point the Court can endeAvor to ascer.
tain, from the best evidence ia their reach,
by examining maps and charts, the locality
of the place: and afier mak,n0 such nm