The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-10-05
From the New York Commercial Advertiser
The Amistad.

4 ne AmlStau
The anxiously expected decision Of the Circui,
Court upon the questions raised by the habeas
corpus, was pronounced yesterday morning, in
the presence OF as many persons as could possibly
find place in the Courtroom. What it would be
no one could form an opinion; and of course il
was listened to with deep and profoundly sien,
attention. We are enabled to place it before our
readers almost in the very words of the learned
Judge who gave IT.
DECISION OF JUDGE THOMPSON.
On the opening of the Circuit Court Monday,
September 23d, Judge Thompson gave his decis-
ion with respect TO the application of the prison.
ers' consul to have the Africans discharged under
the writ of habeas corpus--and denied tie motsos'
He said the question before the Court was SIMPLY
asto the jurisdiction of the District Court over
the subject matter He regretted that the case
had not been held mp for farther consideration,
and, that he had so little opportunity to examine
the various important questions that are involved
in it, with that horougnness and dehberation that
were desirable He regretted this the more as
1t was one also difficult to be understood by the
public. He could not be insensible to the fact
that the feelings of the community were deeply
involved in the question, and he feared there
might be misapprehenson ofthe real questions to
be disposed of by the Court.-Itis possible, he
said that there might be some misrepresentation.
He would therefore have preferred that time
shou ld have been allowed for him to give writ
zen opinion. But the counsel have thought it
advisable, and he did not say it was not excusa-
BILE, to call upon the Court to dispose of the case
aow, and he was compelled, though much against
his wishes, to dispose of it in the best way he
could.
The question to be decided ao,c as not as to the
Interior rights Of either party-but it is whether
the District Court can take cognzance Of the sub
ject matter that grows out Of this case. In order
TO ascertain this, we mast recur to the laws of the
United States The case has been placed before
the Court on the abstract right of holding human
beings in bondage, or on the general question of
slavery. The Court is not called upon here to
determine this abstract question. 1t is sufficient
10 say that the constitution of the United States,
although the term slavery is not used, and the
laws of the u. States do recognize the right
Of one man to have the control of the labor of an
other man. The laws Of the country are found
"a upon this principle. They recognize this
Lind of right Whatever private motives the
Court may have, or whatever may be their feel
rigs, on this subject, they not to be brought
iuto view in deciding upon this question. They
must give the same construction TO the laws OF
ne land, sitting in this State, as they would
and the duty of the Court to determine what the
laws are, and not what it might oe desirable they
should be. My feelings, said Judge Thompson,
are personally as abhorrent to the system of sla-
very as those of any man here, but must on my
oath, pronounce what the laws are on this bect.
The true question, then, is to the law, and not
as to any of the questions involved in the case.
The simple question to determine is as to the
right of the District Court Of Connecticut to take
cognizance of the matter.
Under the laws Of the United States all sez-
rres in district are to be taken notice Of in that
distric. where the seizure is made. The import
ant question is always as to the place of seizure,
and the question always turns upon that.-If a
.eizure is made within the limits of state, the ju-
rsdiction of the District Court is local. If it is
made the high seas, any District Court may
take cognizance Of the matter. Where, then, was
the seizure made in this case? 1t seems TO be |
agreed by the counsel on both sides that the sez-
ure was actually made in tie district of New
York If that be'the case this District Court has no
jurisdiction oft whatever.-Bdt if the seizure was
in fact made on the high seas, this District Court
has jurisdiction. Judge t. said he hadsupposed at
first, that the seizure was in fact made in the dis
tfict of New Y ork, bat when he came to examine
the matter he found it was not Lieut.. Gcd-
nev, in his libel, states no such thing. He says
he was OH u survey WltuIl the StdLe Vi 4NSW
York but he does not say that he actually disco
vered the schooner Amstad within that district,
and that he made the seizure within the district
of New Y ork. All the evidence before the court
is what is set forth in the libel. The vessel, it
seems was taken off Montaul Point The grand
jury, in their statement say it was mile distant
from the shore. If this be CORE ct, it was seiz
ure upon the high seas, and therefore the matter
is rghtfhlly before the Court for this district.
In the absence of absolute certainty on the
point the Court can endeavor to ascertain from
the best evidence in their reach, by examing maps
and charts the locality of the place; and after
making such an examination, they are Of opinion
that the actual place of seizure does not appear to
be within the jurisdiction Of the District Court of
New York, but upon the high seas. The admi-
rally jurisdiction upon the ocean extends to low
water mark. Between high and low water mark
there is alternate jurisdiction between the admi-
rally and common law courts. In deciding then
that the seizure was made, in the judgment OF
the Court, upon the high seas-if either party Is
dissatisfied, the Court can institute inquiry TO as
certain 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 ascer-