The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-10-05

here of their own accord, and being taken up by
other persons agains! their will III the DISTRICT
Court has jurisdiction of the schooner, they have
jurisdiction of the persons OF these Africans, and
thew are bound to provide necessares for them.
They can provide for them as well as any other
persons. The case seems to have been argued on
the part of the prisoners il they ought to be dis
charged if the Court has no jurisdiction. This
is not So If it should be decided that the District
Court here has no jurisdiction they can decide al
so that the case be submitted to the District Court
Of New York. The Court would in that case,
send vessel and cargo and every thing appertain-
ing, to 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 to anolher district 1t It's
therefore matter of no consequence to the prs-
anerS whether the question is tried here or in the
district of New York.
1t has been said that the subsequent proceed
ings in filing these libels and claims here, were
without authority. But if the case is within the
jurisdiction of the District Court, other bels could
be filed 1t is true that if the original bills have
been filed in order to bring the matter within the
jurisdiction of this Court: the proceedings may be
irregular. If there is any irreguarity, it can be
corrected by flnga new libel-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 United States. 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 United States have Ia
ken cognizance of cases analogous to this. The
question of Jurisdiction is preliminary question
and the Court should not decide questions of alb
stract right The courts of the United States,
have taken cognizance of cases where foreigners
claimed the persons of slaves. But this is the first
instance where a writ of habeas corpus has been
applied for. 1t has never been made a 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 propery-he
Court said they must show their title.
There may be an impression here, that because
slavery is not tolerated in Connecticut, the right
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 Govern
ment recognized the right to import slaves up to
the year lS0S.--lt is true the constitution does
not use that language, but 1t recognizes that right
up to 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. it goes even beyond this and in
terdicts the states from passing laws that oppose
claimants from taking fugitive 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, there
foro to cav thot tbaro Is M rroupd ,,nor uh ;cb
they can entertain the motion under the writ OF
habeas corpus.
They fear that some misapprehcnsion exists in
which the case has been disposed of by the grand
Jury under the direction of the Court. The ques-
ton 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
United States. If the offence of murder has been
on board foreign vessel, with for
eign crew and with foreign papers, this is not an
offence against the United States. It is an offence
against the laws of the country to which the yes
sci belonged. The courts Of the United States
have, i'll such cases, no urisdiction-but if the
offence be against the laws of nations this Court
would have jurisdiction. A murder committed,
as in the case Of the captain of the Amisiad is
not crime against the laws of nations, connect
ed as it is with the slave trade.
The Court said that as they perceived there
were note-takers present. they hoped they would
be careful to make true representation of the
decision. The Court does not undertake to say
that these Africans have no right to their freedom
but leave that matter in litigation in the District
Court subject to appeal And for reasons as
signed, deny this motion
One of the counsel for the prisoners then asked
the Court if they meant to express the opirion that
a foreigner coming here with a slave can call up
on the U. S. Courts to enforce the claim of the
foreigner to the slave. Judge Thompson, in re-
ply said he did not wish to decide now upon the
abstract question. AS a Judge he did not feel
called upon to decide it.
-
From the N. Y. American.