The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-03-29
Prom The Boston Times.
THE CREOLE CASE.

|
Whoever will carefully read Mr.. Webster's letter
to Mr. Everett upon the Creole case, must admit tie
force of his reasoning TO prove that the British Gov
eminent is bound to make restitution to the owners
of the property An attempt is made to mislead the
public mind from the main question in this ease, by
insisting that the slaves had right to recover their
liberty, and that this precisely like that OF the
Amistad. But whether the slaves i'll this case were
justihable not in recovering their liberty by any
means in their power, not question between the
American and British Governments and between
the of the Creole and Amstad not the slightest
similarity exists. As an abstract principle we adj
NIT that slaves have right under any circumstances
to recover their liberty for being natural right
liberty cannot be rightly invaded excepting pun
shment for crime and, therefore, when the right is
taken away, 1T may be recovered again by any means
necessary Tor the purpose. Such was the doctrine
of those who achieved the American revolution, and
such is the doctrine proclaimed In the Declaration OF
Independence, and in all the constitutions OF the
Union State and Federal. But as another abstract
principle insist that each nation is independent OF
all other nations, and, consequently, that each may
establish its laws, good or bad, without being
accountable to any other nation, to any other pow
er than the Supreme Ruler of all nations. Hence,
while we admit slavery to be wrong, we deny that
it is wrong in which Britain has right to
punish, or otherwise notice. IT, then, an American
slave has right to recover his liberty by force, Br
fish authorities have right to aid him in the at
tempt, while the two countries are proiessedly at
peace. If the abstract right to liberty and the alb
stract right to national independence seem to conflict
in our case we remove the difficulty by saying that
nations are accountable to God for their government
and not to each other and add that while,
of free New England, we of Massachusetts abhor
slavery n all forms, will not, citizens of this
Union, permit foreigners to interfere between Anne
rcan slaves and their masters. We concede thus
much for natural right and insist upon thus much for
national independence.
No Hpnit that, Ip1ar he laws Ot nat
committing crimes in country and flying to an
other, are safe in the country where they seek an
asylum. Such country is not bound to deliver them
to the country which they have offended, unless a
treaty for such purpose exists between them Thus,
if ships crew at Albany should murder the officers
while the ship was at the wharf, escape in boat and
find their way to the Bahama Islands, they would be
entitled to the protection of British laws and British
authorities would not be obliged to deliver them on
demand of our Government Their crime is murder,
and against the laws of New York or the United
States, and not piracy, crime against the laws of
nations. The British authorities would not modest
them, because they have committed no crime against
British laws or the laws of nations, but merely a
crime against the municipal laws Of foreign coun-
try crime of which British authorities can take
cognzance Their crime is accomplished and per-
fected in foreign country, and they are on British
territory as fugi ives, and not criminals But if
they should commit the crime on the high seas
and seek the same asylum British authorities would
American authorities, but would Dove the right to
punish them according to British laws for their crime
is piracy crime against the laws OF nations, and
which all nations have right to punish So If they
begin crime in country and perfect II IN another
the nation where the crime is perfected is bound to
deliver them to the nation in which the crime is
menced. As this distinction may not be Ineligible
all of our readers, we will illustrate 1t by case
ships crew overpower their officers at wharf in
Boston carry the ship to Nassau, and there detain
ofSco O murder them, plunuer
the cargo. They began their cline on American,
and continued or perfected it British territory
Admitting, for a moment, that they are not pirates,
we insist that they are criminals against British
we'll as American laws, and may either be punished
according to British laws, delivered to American
authorities according to the comfy, though not the
laws of nations But if their crime be piracy, as we
insist that it is the right of British authorities to
punish or surrender them, at the option OF such au-
thorities is still stronger.
To which of these categorles does the case OF the
Creole belong? We say, to the last; for the mutt
neers not only committed piracy on the high seas but
continued their crime In BRUSH potl. Lney are
not merely fugtives from the country whose laws they
have violated but they criminals against the laws
of the country in which they seek an asylum Upon
this ground the British authorities may not only arrest
them under British laws criminals IN British port,
but are bound to arrest them under the laws of ma
tons as pirates and to punish them, or surrender
them for punishment to American authorities. But
is the attempt of human beings to recover their natu
raj liberty an offence against the laws OF nations! In
the abstract is not but in this CASE the act Is for
hidden by the laws of the United States, as piracy,
and as they are an Independent nation other nations
are bound to respect their laws and have no right to
look beyond them. Therefore, while the British au-
thortes might have right to punish them as pirates
against the natural law of nations, trey would have
right to punish them pirates against the conven-
ona laws of nations and to aid the United States In
furnishing them, rather In delivering them to pun
ishment, for violating American laws Detestable as
slavery s all European nations have recognized ana
pIacsed it. and made its enforcement part Of their
conventional laws of nations; and although one or
more of these nations may repudiate the abomlnabe
institution they are bound to respect, part OF these
very conventional laws of nations The laws of other
nations which still retain it. Thus slavery was once
a part of the laws of nations between Britain and the
United States. Britain has abolished It, Therefore
Britain in treating with the United States, is bound
to consider slavery as part OF the laws OF nalions
still existing between them. And under TINS law,
Britain is bound to regard as pirates all American
slaves who on the high seas overpower their masters
and carry them and their vessels into British port
The natural right liberty and the wrong OF slave
nv, which we freely admit do not affect the question
between the two countries.
We are told that the of the Creole and the
Amistad are similar. They totally different. The
Africans of the Creole recovered their liberty against
a nation which tolerates slavery, and Britain, in its
intercourse with this nation bound to respect ITS
laws, and have right to inquire beyond them, or
interpose between the law and lts suDects Rght OF
wrong slavery is American law, and Britain, in
treating with the United States is bound by it. But
the Amistad Africans not slaues by The lacs Of
Spain or any other country, and therefore, in
erng their liberty, bad right to immunity from OPP
position by any nation. We are told that our courts
had no right to inquire into the laws of Spain But
this the very question presented by the claimants
and the Spanish Government The former claimed
them as slaves before an American court, and
quested it to deliver them OF course the court APP
pealed to and demanded the only legal evidence of the
claim, the laws of Spain. They not recognizing the
slavery of native Africans, and declaring criminal the
very act by which these Africans got upon Spanish
territory, the claim not supported and the
claimants and ciamees, being equally foreigners and
indenendent Of each other. were equally entitled To