The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-02-18

l. ERA: WASHINGI
They were merchandise one day; pirates
and robbers" the next; and again, on the third
changed to " merchandise"
And here is difficulty for the advocates O,
this indemnity scheme to solve: If these Afri
cans were pirates and robbers and unless
they we're, they do not fall within the terms Of
the treaty, for it was ont of their own "hands .
that they were I" rescued they would. by the
laws of Spain, had they been delivered up to her
authorities, have been subject to the death pen.
atty, the punishment pronounced, believe, in
all countries upon these guilty of piracy. And
can we for moment suppose that in a case oil
robbery and piracy so aggravated as Spain has
assumed to consider this, she would have failed
to stringently enforce the law? Would she not
have required the pound of fesh," az nomi
mated in the bond 2" And if 90, what would
the cargo of the Amistad have been worth 70
Ruiz and Montez? If the "piratesn had
been hung, what would have been the fate OF
the merchandise In this light, then, the
liberation of the Africans by the Supreme Court
caused no loss to their pretended owners.
Again, to bring this case within the terms oil
the treaty, it was indispensable for Ruiz and Mon
tez to establish their title to the merchandise y
by "due and sufficient proof" On this point, q
brief extract from the opinion of the court shall
suffice. / quote from 18th Peters's report, page
693:
evidence that these negroes tce,e the La,c
Of Ruiz and Monz any other Spanish subjects They
are natives OF Africa and kidnapped there,
were unaUfy transported 10 Cuba in violation Of The
laws and treaties of Spain, and The solemn edct
and treaties and edics the African slave is utterly
abolished the dealing in that trade is deemed heinou
crime and the negroes thereby introduced into the domn
ions of Spain declared be Ruiz and Monte1
proved TO have made the pretended purchase ohess
negroes with fail knowledge of ali the circumstances
and eogent and 6rsssbie the evidences in THE
spect hat the district attorney has admitted IN open court
the record, that these negroes native Africans
and recently imported into Cuba, alleged in thei
answers TO the bels in the The supposed propTie
tary interes, of Ruiz and Montez completely displaced, il
at liberty to look at the evidence the admis
sions of the district Attorney"
Again, tie court says, on pege 500;
"Upon the merits of the case, them there does moi
be any ground for doubt that these
ought DO emed ree and that the Spanish treaty III
terposes obstacle to the just assertion of their rights
Such, sir, was the view taken of this subject
by the Supreme Court of the United States in
l84l The opinion of the court was delivered
by Judge Story, who has had few equals, and
no superiors, as an expounder of law, in this or
other lands and there Was great unanimity of
opinion among the members of the court, only
one-Mr. Justice misunderstanding; uni.
ty of sentiment that did not exist in the bred
Scott case, which gentlemen on the other side
regard as final and unquestionable settlement
of an important principle. And it is beyond
dispute that the President regards the action
of the court in the latter case as final. Thus,
speaking in his late message of the slaves now
in Kansas, he says:
"These slaves brought into the Territory under
the Constitution OF the United States, and the
property their This point has at length been
finally decided by the highest judicial tribunal Of the
country"
Now, it is fair inquiry, why the President
should view these two decisions of the Supreme
Court in lights 80 very different ? Surely no
one will pretend that there was less legal acu-
men, less soundness of judgment, less honesty
of purpose, in the court of l84l, than in the
court of 1857. No one would dare so wickedly
to wrong the illustrious dead. There must be
some other potent reason why the Executive
" earnestly recommends" Congress to disregard
or overthrow the decision in the Amistad case,
and in the same document pronounces the
bred Scott decision final" Nor is it difficult
to discover what that reason is. The former is
an Anti Slavery decision, the latter Pro Slavery.
The one preserved Freedom to some fifty Afri-
cans the other entails or is designed to entail
Slavery upon countless thousands. The one
was made in the spirit that governed public
men in the better days of the Republic; the
other was an unholy attempt to give solemn
judicial sanction to those ultra Pro-Slavery
interpretations of the Constitution, which, al.
though of recent origin, have already deeply
stained the soil of one fair Territory with the
blood of many freemen, aud have shaken the
very foundations of the Union itself. The one
was in accordance with the genius of our re-
publican institutions, and in harmony with the
principles Of our religion and the feelings of
good men throughout the void; the other did
gross violence to the Constitution of our coun-
try, gross injustice to the wise and patriotic men
who framed it, aud the equally wise and up
right jurists who had so long interpreted it in
q manner favorable to free labor and free men !;
and last, but not least, gross violence to the
humane feelings, and gross despite to the com.
mon sense of nine-tenths of the civilized por-
ton of the great brotherhood of man.
1t is humiliating to my pride as an American
citizen to say 1t, land earnestly wish it were
not true but see no other, can discover no
other reason for the alaerity and earnestness
with which the President hurries to conclusions
so directly opposite, with reference to the respect
due these two decisions of the same judicial
tribunal. The slave power, the power behind
the throne" wlled it, and at once it's will was
recognised as law. The Chief Executive of
the nation yielded ready and willing obedi-
ence. He recognised this extra-judicial opin-
ion Of a me joritv of The Justices of the Supreme
Court as the @ final settlement Of grave ne.
tional political question.
Notwithstanding the court had admitted lite
want of jurisdiction over this very case; not
withstanding the opinion given overturned
previous decisions, made under more suspicious
circumstances, and aoguiesced in by the PEG.
pie and all the departments of the Government
through long series of years notwithstand-
ing the sectional, partisan, antrepublican
character of the opinion itself; notwithstand.
ing it overthrow doctrines which the President
had himself held and advocated with zeal and
ability at An earlier period of his life; and not.
withstanding the notorious fact that this opinion
was opposed and logically demolished, utterly
by two of the ablest Justices on
the Observation-Disclosures all these things,
which should certainly have made the Execu-
tive at least little cautious he receives i. with
q hearty amen, pronounces it final" and de-
clares it mystery" how the doctrines ad.
vanced /" could ever have been seriously doubt
ed"
And then, aSbefore stated, he earnestly rec
ommends" Congress to overrule the decision
in the Amistad case, and pay Ruiz and Montez
for negroes whom they never owned. Am not
right in saying that this can only be explained
by looking at the "power behind the throne ?"
What other motive but desire to conciIiate
that power could have induced the President 70
make this remarkable recommendation? But
here, it seems to me, he went even farther than