The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-01-21

THE CASE OF THE CREOLE AND AIlSTAD
In a communication to the Richmond Compiler,
the Hon. Conway Robinson, Of Virginia, shows as
follows that the decision in the of the Amistad
is not precedent for the of the Creole
THE CREOLE CASE.
To The Editors Of the Compiler
GENTLEMEN: have received your note You are
right in supposng that the of the Creole mem
toned in your paper of to-day, unlike that of the
Amistad
The 9th article of the treaty between the United
States and Spain, provides G that all ships and mer-
chandise Of what nation soeyer, which shall be
cued out of the hands Of any pirates robbers on
the high seas, shall be brought into ne port of
either State and shall be delivered into the custody of
the officers of that port in order to be taken Of
and restored entire to the true proprietor
due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the
prol erty thereof" II was this article that the
main reliance was placed in the of the Amstad
and the restitution of the negroes to Ruiz and Mon
tcz the asserted proprletors Tobrlng the case with
in the article il essential to establish that the
groes fell within the description of merchandise in
the sense of the treaty and that Ruiz and Montez
were the true proprietors. But the Supreme Court
of the United States considered that the last requisite
was not established
The Court was of opinion, that if the negroes were
at the time lawfully held as slaves under the laws of
Spain and recognized by those laws as property capa
bic of being lawfully bought and sold, there was no
reason why they might not Justly be deemed within
the intent of the treaty. to be included under the de-
nomination of merchandise and as such restored for
upon that point the Court considered that the laws eff
Spain would furnish the proper rule of interpreta-
ton. But the ground of decision was g that these
negroes were the lawful slaves of Ruiz or Mon
ez, or of any other Spanish subjects They were
Gin the language of the Court natives of .4rica and
were kidnapped there and were unlawfuy transport
ed to Cuba in violation of the laws and treaties of
SPAIN and the most solemn edics and declarations of
that Government BY those laws and treaties and
edicts the African slave trade is utterly abolished ;
the dealing in that trade is deemed heinous crime ;
and the negroes thereby introduced into the domin-
ion of Spain declared to be free. Ruiz and Mon
tez are proved to have made the pretended purchase
of these negroes, with full knowledge of all the cir
cunlstances. Considering the negroes not as slaves,
but kidnapped Africans, who by the laws of Spain
itself entitled to their freedom the Supreme
Court could not do otherwise than declare them free
and hold that the Spanish treaty mterposed no obsa-
Gle to the just assertion Of their rights
There is nothing then to support the idea that
though the negroes board the Creole were at the
time lawfully held slaves under the laws of the
United States and recognized. by those laws as pro-
perry capable of being lawfully bought and sold, the
authorities of New Providence would be justified by
the decision in the of the Amsad in refusing to
restore the negroes to their On the contra
ry, the opinion in the of the Amstad 50 far as
At is applicable, is the other way.