Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1839-09-26
same place was, which was Bandaboo, aud
farther saith not
|. Bahoo, bis X mark.

farther saltli not 49,
Bahoo, bis X. mark.
State Of Connecticut,
Hartford, Sept. the 20,l. 1880.
Antonio, the boy, was introduced, ana DC
ing examined through the Interpretation OF
Lieut. Meade, deposed that no was the slave
Of Captain Ferrez that the Amlstad sailed
openly, in daylight, without any attempt to
evade The observation OF the British and
Yankee men. war then lying in that port;
that the slaves were not chained together,
&c. &c. Ills testimony had no very impor-
tant bearing on the case.
Mr.. Staples then concluded tho argument,
bcstowing q sevCre cnstigallon on Tho
Spuniards and the District attorney, and re-
iterating with great clearncss and power tho
arguments, already presented by himself and
Mr.. Baldwin.
Judge Thompson gave notice that he
would pronounce his decision on Saturday
morning.
HARTFORD, Saturday night, Sept. 81.
Gentlemcn-Judge Thompson occupied
half an hour this morning in giving The views
of the Court on the points submitted yester-
day by the Counsel. The question Is. arc
these persons rgmfully detained IN the Dis
trct Court. He said that the Court was of
opinion that the prisoners cannot be taken
OIL. of the jurisdiction of the District Court,
OH The writ Of habeas corpus. The Court
therefore requested the counsel 10 furnish
them with an argument on the main q'ies-
ton, ,ol,efher the District Court had amy j,yis.
diction in the case The Court then took n
recess till g o'clock, 10 allow the counsel To
prepare. This afternoon the question was
claborately discussed. Tho Court adjourned
till Monday morning, when the opinion OF
the Court will be given. Respectfully,
L.TAPPAN.
DECISION OF. JUDGE THOMPSON.
On the opening Of the Circuit Court,
Monday Sept. 23d, Judge Thompson
gave his decision with respect to the ap-
plication of the prisoners counsel, to
have the Africans discharged under The
writ Of habeas corpus-and denied The
motion. lie said the question before
the Court was simply as to the jurisdic-
ton of the District Court over this sub
ject matter. lie regretted that the case
had not been held up for farther con
sideration, and that he had so little OPP
poltunity TO examine the various impor-
tant questions that are involved in it,
with that thoroughness and deliberation
that were desirable. He regretted this
the more as the case is very peculiar
and complicated one. IL was one also
difficult 10 be understood by the public.
lie could not be insensble to the fact
that the feelings Of the community were
deeply involved in the question, and he
feared there might be misapprehension
Of the rea questions TO be disposed Of
by the Court. II is possible, he said,
that there may be some misrepreseDta-
ton. lie would therefore have prefer
red that time should have been allowed
for him 10 give n written opinion. But
the counsel have thought it advisable,
aud he did not say it was not eXcusablc,
to call upon the Court TO dispose of the
case now, and he was compelled, though
much against his wishes, to dispose Of il
in the best way he could.
The question 10 be decided now Is moi as
10 the ultimate rights Of either party, but
it is whether the District Court can take
cognizance Of the subject matter that
grows out Of this case. In order 10 as
certain this, we must rcCur 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 10 determine this abstract question.
Ii is sufficient to say that the constiu-
lion of the United States, although the
term 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 prin-
cipe. 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 to be brought into view in deciding
upon this question. They must give the
same construction TO the laws Of the land
sitting in this State, as they would were
they sitting in Virginia. II is the pro-
vince and The duty of the Court to deter
mine what the laws are, and not what it
might be desirable they should be. My
feelings, said Judge Thompson, are per-
sonally as abhorrent TO the sy stem Of
slavery as those Of any man here, but
must on my oath, pronounce what the
laws are on this subject. The true
question then is as to the law, and not as
10 any Of the questions involved in tho
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 seizures in district are 10 be taken
notice of in that district where the Sci
euro is made. The important question
is always as TO the place Of seizure, and
the question always turns upon that. If
a seizure is made within the limits Of n
State, the jurisdiction Of the District
Court is local. IL it is made on the high
seas any District Court may take cogni-
zance Of tho matter. Where then was
the seizure made in this case 1t seems
to be agIeed by the counsel on both
sides that the seizure was actually made
in the district of New York. If that bc
the case this District Court has no juris-
diction OF it whatever. But if the sei-
zure was in fact made on the high seas