Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/551

 And he would himself have become a slave This was a case of felony; and felony could not confer property.

The next day, a second writ of habeas corpus having been issued, all the Africans were before the court. The counsel recapitulated the facts of the case, and again denied the jurisdiction of the district court. As a court of admiralty, it could do nothing with them but as property; and the applicant must first prove them to be property. Some of them were taken on shore; these were within the jurisdiction of the common law.

As to the libel of the district attorney at the suit of the Spanish minister, what had the minister to do with it? The parties claimed were neither fugitives or criminals. The district attorney libels them and prays that they may be kept in custody, that, if at some future time it should appear that they had been brought hither illegally, they might be delivered up to the president to be sent back to their own country. The counsel then asked their discharge. He said they should be taken care of (as it was right they should be) by the state of Connecticut.

The counsel for the claimants followed in support of the jurisdiction of the district court; and the district attorney in support of his libel on behalf of the executive.

The decision of the court (Judge Thompson) in relation to the motion of the prisoners' counsel to discharge the Africans, was to deny the motion, as the question before the court was simply as to the jurisdiction of the district [sic]conrt over this subject. If the seizure was made upon the high seas — and the grand jury said it was made a mile from the shore — then the matter was right — fully before the court for this district. If, as was supposed by the counsel on both sides, the seizure was made within the district of New York, the court could endeavor to [sic]acertain the locality. To pass upon the question of property, belonged to the district court. Should either party be dissatisfied with the decision of that court, an appeal could be taken to the circuit court, and afterwards to the supreme court of the United States.

The court said the question now disposed of had not been affected by the manner in which the grand jury had disposed of the case upon the directions of the court. They had only found that there had been no criminal offense committed which was cognizable by the courts of the United States. Murder committed on board a foreign vessel with a foreign crew and foreign papers, was not such an offense; but an offense against the laws of the country to which the vessel belonged. But if the offense had been against the law of nations, this court would have jurisdiction. The murder of the captain of the Amistad was not a crime against the law of nations.

The district court was opened; and the judge said he should order the district attorney to investigate the facts to ascertain where the seizure was made; and then adjourned the court to November.

At the adjourned term of the court in November, it was pleaded in behalf of the Africans, that neither the constitution, laws, or any treaty of the United States, nor the law of nations, gave this court any jurisdiction over their