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

-
question, namely, whether the President of the
United States has any power to deliver up these
persons to the Spanish government, as fugitive
criminals; we consider that question to be con-
clusively settled in the negative, by the recent
case of Dr. Holmes. Any such power claimed
and attempted to be exercised by the President of
the United States, could not fall sooner or later,
to bring the Federal Executive into dangerous
collision with the State authorities.
The third great question, that, namely, wheth-
err these captives can be regarded and treated as
property, and as such are liable to be delivered
up TO the persons claiming to own them. This
question is raised, though possibly it may not be
settled, by the Habeas Corpus case in regard to
the three children, as to the progress of which case
we proceed TO give some account
This case came on for argument on Friday
morning ltappeared by the return of the Mar
shall to the writ, that there had been filed in the
District Court, first libel by Captain Gedney
and his crew, claiming salvage upon the Amistad,
and the property on board, Of which property it
was set up that these girls were a part inasmuch
as they were slaves second, a libel on the part
of Pedro Montez, claiming these girls as his prop
erty, and praying that they might be delivered up
to him. and third, libel by the U. S. Attorney
for the District of Connecticut. setting out that
these girls were claimed by the Spanish Ambass-
ador under the treaty with Spain as Spanish
property and praying that the Court order them
to be delivered up under that claim; or, in case
the Court should Judge the case unfounded, that
it order the children to be delivered up to the
President of the United States, for the purpose of
being sent back TO their own country.
Messrs. Staples and Baldwin argued for the
children, and Messrs. Ingersoll and the District
Attorney, against them-The argument consum-
ed the whole of Friday, till Z o'clock, P. NJ when
it was concluded, and the Court adjourned.
The argument against discharging the children
under the writ, seemed to be principally grounded
so far are informed, upon the point, that the
question whether the children are slaves or not
was the very matter which must come up before
the District Court, upon the libels filed therein,
and that the Circuit Court ought not to anticipate
the judgment of the District Court, by deciding
that point upon this Habeas Corpus. If the de-
csion of that Court should be wrong, the Circuit
Court would correct it on appeal. The claimant,
Montez, might be able to prove that these girls
were his lawful property, if he were allowed time
to send to Cuba for the evidence.
On the other hand, the counsel for the children
contended, that these children were not and could
not be, under any state of facts, the property of
Monez, or any body else and by way of show
not properly, they put in evidence certain Spanish
decrees totally abolishing the African Slave trade
and pronounced it to be criminal offence; also
the dispositions of two native African interpreters
to the fact that these children could neither speak
English nor Spanish and that, from their language
they the deponents, judged them to be Mandin-
goes; also the affidavit of Boboo, one ofhe Amis-
tad prisoners, made through an interpreter, that
The two girls were born in the same town with
himself, and that they were brought from Africa
N the same ship with himself
The argument was closed on Friday evening
and the opinion ofthe Judge was expected on Sat
lrday,-but of what was done on that day we
have no accounts.
An indication however, seemed to be afforded
in the course of the argument, that the Court
would have great difficulty in holding these chill
1ren to be property. 1t was argued by Staples,
and justly, that if these children were property,
and liable as such 10 the claim ofsalvage, that then
/ would follow that they might be sold at auction
n the State of Connecticut! For it is the usual
way, when salvage is decreed, to decree certain
Der cent upon the value of the property and in or
Ter to determine what that value is, to authorize
he property TO be sold at auction. Judson, the
District Judge,-and who, as the author of the
Connecticut Black Act, is not supposed
" NC ioEOluoiy luCliHeu lOWdluS Tic pllsUueIS-
Jaw the danger ofthis argument and he Interrupt
ed the counsel, with the declaration "that he
rad already declared in the district Court, that
hese Africans could not be sold in Connecticut,
Is slaves, but that salvage might be awarded on
he vessel and cargo and the value of the slaves,
f recognized to be lawfully slaves, might be con-
dered in making up the amount to be allowed"
But we apprehend the establishment of such
doctrine would overturn the most settled prin-
pes by which courts are governed in deci-
ling salvage.
As to the salvage question, we are inclined to
hink that Capt. Gedney will fail altogether in es-
ablishing any claim to salvage.
The question whether any claim of property
an be established against any ofthe Amistad pris-
ners, seems to US extremely clear and to lie in
cry small compass
LIST. Under the Spanish law these prisoners
re not slaves. By repeated DEGREES of the. Span
sh Government, the African slave trade is abol- t
shed, and has become a criminal offence All H.
Africans imported into the Spanish territories are
ntitled TO their liberty. But then ii is said that
he Spaniards have good prima facie title to @
lese slaves, because they possess permit from
he custom house, by which they are authorized to
ansport these slaves from Havana to Principe
nd that o1r Courts ran epnniro M f,rtbor IT. | :