Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-09-27

advisable he did not say it was not excrsabe 10 call
upon me Cour, TO dsposr of thr case now he was com
PEELED though much against his wishes 10 dispose OF It
10 the best way he could
tn. 9usstn be decided nolo IS mi as to The ultimate
righs If ethtr II is whether the District Court
can take Of the subject matter that grows cot
Of this
nm. Or1y,os Of the Court will be published in full
hereafter It's Conclusion s substantially as follows
There NAV be an impression here that because sa.
very is no, tolerated in Connecticut that The right OF
these Spaniards should not be investigated The Court
however must be governed by the laws of the United
States and MT by The laws OF the Stale OF Connecticut
Our form of Government recognised The right 10 import
slaves no 10 III. wear IouS II the Constitution
does not use that language, but recognizes The right
to a certain period aud declares until then It was law
u importation The Constitution also provides Tor The
recovery of persons that may escape from one Stale INTO
another whrre is due III goes even beyond inns
and nprdics lh- States from passing avs that Oppose
claimants from taking fugitive persons 10 Tie tree States
Should any State pass such laws, they would he ahso
lulely void We must look al things as They are The
Court feel bound therefore TO that there Is no ground
upon ,chieh Mey entertain the motion under me 'cT
Of hdGeas corpus.
"1hey fear that some Misrepresentation exists in The
public mind as 10 The effect and GROUND on which lhe
case has been disposed by The Grand Jury, upon the
directions of the Court The question now disposed Of
has been affected by what previously TOOK place =
The only settled previously was that there had
been criminal offence cognizabe by the Courts oil The
United States II the offence OF murder has been com
mi,led on board foreign vessel, with foreign crew
ana with foreign papers, this Is not an offence against
The laws of HE United States. II is offence against,
the laws Of the country which the vessel bronged
The Courts OF the United States have in such cases no
iursdc,inn- il the offence be against the laws oil
na,ions this Court would have jurisdiction. murder
con- illpd in The of the captain OF The Amisad,
ia not crime against the laws OF natons,-wrre The
crime piracy even it would not 5e crane against me
laws of nations connected as 1t IS with The slave trade
The Court said that as they perceived there were
present they hoped they would be careful 10
make true reprpsen laon Of the decision The Court
does not undertake decide that these persons have no
rio ut their freedom but leave that matter in litigation
in The District Court subject 10 appeal And Tor reasons
assigned deny this moii0n
One Of The counsels for the prisoners then asked the
Court they meant 10 express the opinion thai To-
reguer coming here with slave can call upon The u
S Courts to enforce the claim of the foreigner TO The
slave Judge Thompson, IN reply said he did MT wish
10 decide upon The abstract question As Judge
he did feel called upon TO decide 1t. The Court was
then adjourned SINE die.
The District Court was opened The judge said be
should direct that The United States Attorney should
repair to Monlauk Point in the Revenue Cutter, with
gentleman Tie ether side 10 investigate The tacs,
where the actually made, &c; that
the Cuurt would b. 10 meet IN this CITY on Inc
third tuesday in November next; and that meantime II
wond be the duty Ut the Marshal 10 that the prison.
efs were comfortably situated, provided with clothes
suited the that they had pro eT and sufficient
food medical attendance, &c. The Court would, II is
presumed allow The prisoners 10 bp discharged on giving
bail but il be 0ppraSemcnt their counsel
woul not cunst TO it, ThesprIsoners will probably
be remanded 10 the Jail in New Haven.