Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1839-09-26


does not appear to be within the juris-
diction Of the District Court of New
York, but upon tho high seas. The ad-
miralty jurisdiction upon the ocean ex-
tends to low water mark. Between high
and low water mark there is alternate
jurisdiction between the admiralty and
common law courts. In deciding then
that the seizure was made, in the judg-
ment of the Court, upon the high seas
II either party is dissatisfied, the Court
can institute inquiry TO ascertain the
exact place, but the more regular course
is for the party dissatisfied to interpose
plea TO the jurisdiction of the Court, and
then the District Court must institute an
inquiry to ascertain where the seizure
was made. 1t is not competent then for
this Court, at the present time, TO say
tho District Court has no jurisdiction in
the case. Consequently this Court can
not now pass upon the question as to the
property-that matter belongs to the
District Court. Should either party be
dissatisfied with the decision of that
Court, an appeal can be taken to the
Circuit Court, and allerward to the Su-
premc Court Of the United Slates.-
Meantime the parties must be put to
their pleas in the District Court, in order
that all the facts SC. may be put upon
record.
It has been said this is question of
liberty, and therefore that this Court
ought to decide the case in summary
and prompt manner. But, in the judg-
mcnt of the Court, this ought TO have
no influence in the decision. The situa-
ton of tho prisoners is such that they
must be taken care of by somebody -
They did not come here voluntarily. II
is not the case, therefore, of persons
coming here of their own accord, and
being taken up by other persons against
their will. II the District Court has ju-
risdiciion of the schooner, they have
jurisdiction of the persons of these Afri-
cans and they are bound to provide
necessaries for them. They cnn pro-
vide for them as well as any other per-
sons. 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 jurisdiction. This is not so. II
ii should be decided that the District
Court here has no jurisdiction they can
decide also that the cause be submitted
10 the District Court of New York.
The Court would, in that case, send
vessel and cargo, and every thing ap-
pertaining, to that Court. The prison
ers 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 to another district. -
1t is therefore a matter Of no conse-
quence 10 the prisoners whether the
question is tried here or in the district
OF New York.
1t has been said that the subsequent
proceedings in filing these libcls and
claims here, were without authority
But ifthc case is within the jurisdiction
of the District Court, other libcls could
be filed. 1t is true, that il the original
bills have been filed in order to bring
the matter within the jurisdiction of this
Court, the proceedings may be irregular.
IL there is any irregularity, it can be
corrected by filing new Iibel-the case
being in the possession Of the District
Court, however 1t is bound to receive
claims Of any body. This Court cannot
decide whether these Spaniards have
rightto these persons, or whether they
should be put in the possession Of the
President of the United States. These
questions are not now regularly before
the Court. They must come up here
after, and the Court must dispose of
them. The Courts Of the United States
have taken cognizance of cases anala-
gous to this. The question Of jurisdc-
ton is u preliminary question, and the
Court should not decide questions Of
abstract right. The Courts of the Uni
ted States have taken cognizance of
cases where foreigners claimed the per-
sons of slaves. But this is the first in
stance where n writ Of habeas corpus
has been applied for. 1t has never been
made Il question whether they were in
stantly free on being brought into the u.
States. The case Of the Antelope is
directly in point. The Spanish and Por-
tuguesc consuls claimed these subjects
as propcrty-the Court said they must
show their title.
There may be an impression here,
that because slavery is not tolerated in
Connecticut, the rig ht of these Spaniards
should not be Investigated. The Court,
however, must be governed by the laws
of the United States, and not by the
laws of the State OF Connecticut Our
form of Government recognized the right
to import slaves up to the year l808,-
Ii is true the constitution does not use
that language, but il recognizes that
right up to a certain period, and declares
that till then it was lawful importation.
The constitution also provides for the
recovery of persons that may escape
from one state into another where service
is due. 1t goes even beyond this, and
iuicrdicis the states from passing laws
that oppose claimants from taking Iugi.
tive persons in the free states. Should
any state pass such laws, they would be
absolutely void. We must look at things
as they are. The court feel bound +,
therefore, to say that there is no ground
upon which they can entertain the mo-
- l.. ,l,o ,,,.;t ,,C L,h,,e .o,n,,e