YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE AMISTAD CLAIM,

SPEECH

OP

HON. JAMES DIXON, OF CONNECTICUT.
IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 8, 1860.

¦ ¦ . 1
The Senate aaviag toe Message under consideration-
Mi-. DIXON said:
Mr. President: Th« portion of the message of
the President of the United States on which I now
propose to address the Senate, is that in which
he recommends the_pa3sage-of a bill for the pay
ment of the claimants in what is known as the
Amistad case. I propose to submit my views on
the subject at this time, while the message is under
discussion, believing that I shall now be more
likely to draw the attention of the Senate to the
merits of the case than at a later stage of the ses
sion, whim other subjects of greater importance
may occupy the minds of Senators. The Presi
dent brings the question to our notice in the folio w-
ing language: ; • ''
' " I again recommend fbat an appropriation be made f to
be paid to the Spanish Government for the purpose of dis
tribution among the claimants in the Amistad case.' In
common with twoof my predecessors, I entertain no doubt
tt,,it tills is required by our treaty with Spain of the 27ih
October, 1793. The failure to dischaz-jie this obligation has
' been employed by the cabinet of Madrid as areason against
the settlement of our claims."
It is more than twenty years since the date of
the occurrences which gave rise to the claim thus
recommended to the favorable consideration of
Congress in the message before us. A part of
these occurrences took place in. the State of Con
necticut, and those of the actors therein who weie
of the African race were for some time imprisoned
in that State. The circumstances connected with
their capture, their habits and mode of life, and,
to some extent, their subsequent history, became
familiar to many of my constituents. Hence, the
question now presented U one of peculiar interest
tn thnm. not merely because it is some what related
t« <ie controversy oe tween the North andtheSouth
on the subject of slavery, but because the facts on
which it is founded, and the principle it involves,
were,, at the outset, brought to. their' notice, and,
for the long period I have mentioned, have from
time to time claimed their attention.
I propose to examine this question, Mr. Presi
dent, without much reference to certain exciting
iopics whiph might be brought wjlhin the range'

of this discussion. I shall treat the subject in ti-.*>
spirit in which it might have been treated in 16M9,
when there was comparatively little excitement, 1
cither at the North or 'the South, on the subject i
of slavery. At that time, legal process was ex
ecuted upon the Africans of the Amistad, v/iUioi-.t
causing the slightest manifestation of iejling. No
one thought, for a moment, of resisting, except
by legal means, the attempt to return them to the
bondage from which they had escaped. The only
inquiry was as to their state and condition, undei
the Spanish law and our own; and in the decision
ofacumpe tent tribunal all were willing to acquiesce. -
Tbemaiufaets in theoase areaf. follows: In the !
year 1839, a Spanish ship. liuL-n with Mendin.it ¦
negroes, kidnapped in Africa, was, 'n violation. of
Spanish law. brough. int i Havana. Tv.-o Span
iards, named Palis and Monte?., run-chased about:
fifty of these negroes, with a full knowledge of
their true character and condition, and attempted
to convey them on board the Spanish schooner
L 'Amistad to the port of Principe, distaru. from
Havana about three hundred miles. On thy pas
sage to Principe, the negroes rose, took possession-
of the vessel, killed the captain and cook, sent-
part of the crew ashore, and placing Monte-z at
the helm, compelled him to steer for Africa. This
tle did in the day time, when the negroes could
judge of their course and direction by the sun, but
at night he steered northward, turning- the vessel
again eastward before daylight. At the end of
three or four weeks, they had reached the shores-
of Long Island, having been drifted northward by
the Gulf stream. Here a few of the negroes, ig
norant as they were of the place, and scarcely
competent to do anything to provide for their
selves, driven by hunger and thirst,, went ashore-
in search of food and water. The vessel was soon-
discovered, and was taken possession of, at t?jc
request of Ruis and Montez, by Lieutenant Ged-
ney, of the United States brig Washington ..who
waa at that time employed in the coait survey.
Lieutenant Gedney took the Amistad to New Lon-
don. Montez and Ruis, claiming to-be the owners
of the negroes and the schooner,, were set at lib-

erty, whi\- ihe adult Africans were committed to
prison, an-; the children, of whom there were four,
and the cabin boy, named Antonio, were held as
witnesses. An attempt was made to indict the negroes in
the State of Connecticut, for murder and piracy.
From the testimony of Montez before the grand
ji'ry sui.imoned by the district court, it fully ap
peared that the prisoners were not by the laws of
Spain slaves, but were illegally restrained, and
w.'.re entitled to their freedom. The negroes were
shown to be totally unacquainted with the lan
guage of any civilized people, unable to express
their ideas intelligibly, or to understand any com-:
munication, except by signs; though a Meridian
African was at length found in New York who
could converse with them. The grand jury, after
a full investigation, refused to find a bill of indict
ment. The vessel, with the negroes on board, having
been bi ought by Lieutenant Gedney into the dis
trict of Connecticut, was there, by him, libeled
for salvage in the district court of the United
States, A libel for salvage was also filed by other
parties, who churned to have aided in saving the
ship by arresting the negroes on shore. On the
38th day of September, 1839, Ruis and Montez
filed claims and liheb, in which they asserted the
ownership of the negroes as their slaves, and of
certain parts of the cargo, and prayed that the
sums might be delivered' to them, or to the repre
sentative of her Catholic Majesty, the dueen of
Spain, as might be most proper. On the 19th of
September, the district attorney of the United
States for the district of Connecticut filed an in
formation, or libel, setting forth the claim of the
Sptnio!i Government under the treaty of J795,
renewed in ib21.
To these »;-rious libeI-3, the negroes, Cinques
and othfra,i"/:rh theexcepth n of Antonio, on the
7ih of January, 1S40, filed an answer, denying
that they were -iiares or the property of Ruis arm
yioiA?z, or lh-.it the court could, under the Con
stitution or laws of the United States, or under
airy treaty, exercise any jurisdiction over their
persons, by reason of the premises; and nraying
that they might be dismissed. They specially set
forth and insisted, that they were native-born Af
ricans; that they were born free, and still of right
oi'ght to be free, and not slaves; that they were,
on or about the 15th day of April, 1839, unlaw
fully kidnapped and forcibly and wrongfully car
ried on board a certain vessel, on the coast of
Africa, which was unlawfully engaged in the
slave trade, and were unlawfully transported in
the same vessel to the Island of Cuba, for the pur
pose of being unlawfully sold as slaves; that Ruis
a:id Montez well knowing the premises, made a
pietended purchase of them, that afterwards, on
or about t!i?. asth of June, 1839, Ruis and Mon
tez confederating with Ferrer, captain of the Am
istad, caused them, without law or right, to be
pla vrl on hoard the said Amistad, to be transported
to some place unknown to them, to be enslaved
for life; that on the voyage they rose and took
possession of the vessel, intending to return there
with to their native country, or to seek an asylum
in some free State, &c. At the hearing of the cose

all the libelants and claimants appeared, except
Jose Ruis and Pedro Montez, whose libels mid
claims, as stated of record, respectively, were
pursued by the Spanish Minister, the same being-
merjed in his claim. The negroes also appeared
, by their counsel.
I On the 23d day of January, 1840, the district
' court made a decree. By that decree all claims
' for salvage were rejected, except that of Lieuten
ant Gedney and others, to whom salvage was
allowed on the vessel and cargo of one third n,
the value thereof— but not on the negroes. The
vessel, with the exception of the above-mentioned
salvage, was decreed to be returned to the owners,
Tellincas, Aspez &JL.aca. The libels of Ruis and
Montez, were dismissed with costs, as being in
cluded under the claim of the Spanish Minister.
The cargo, with the exception of salvage, was
returned to Ruis and Montez, as owners, but their
claim for the negroes was rejected. The slave
Antonio was ordered to be returned to the repre
sentatives of Ferrer. The claim of the district
attorney of the United States, on behalf of the
Spanish Minister, for the restoration of the ne
groes, under the treaty, was rejected; and-U- was
decreed thatihey should be delivercd.to the Pres
ident of the United States, to be transported to
Africa, in pursuance of the act of March 3, 1819.
From this decree the district attorney, on be
half of the United States, and for the benefit of
Ruis and Montez and the Spanish .Government,
appealed to the circuit court, and thence to the Su
preme Court of the United States. Ruis and Mon
tez, it is expressly stated of record, and in the
| argument of the district attorney, withdrew, be-
j cause their claim was merged in that presented
> by the Spanish Minister.
The decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, on this appeal, was as follows,
' (Mr. Justice Baldwin only dissenting:)
! i(That the deerec of the circuit court, affirming that of
: the district court, ought to be affirmed, except so far as it
directs the negroes to he delivered to the President to be
! transported to Africa, in pursuance of the act of the 3d of
( March, 1819 ; and, as to this, it ought to be reversed : and
[ that the said negroes be declared to be free, and he dis-
I missed from the custody-of the court, and go without day.?*- [
Failing thus in their attempt to regain posses-
j sion of the negroes by judicial proceedings, Ruis
'arid Montez then presented their claim for com-
| pensation to the Government of the United States
j through the Spanish Minister. This claim has
;been .pursued by them for a period of nearly
.twenty years; and now, the President, following
| the example of two of his predecessors — Presi-
' dents Tyler and Polk — recommends to Congress -
j the payment of the claim.
j Such are the facts in relation to this case in its
j present posture. That the negroes of the Amis-
- tyd were born frep; that lb.ey-werfc-lr-id sapped :~
: Africa; that they were brought to Cuba, and soid
as slaves to Montez and Ruis, in violation of the
laW3 of Spain, is beyond controversy. Still, it is
claimed that by. treaty stipulations, notwithstand
ing the decision of the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted Slates, this Government is bound to make
compensation to the pretended owners of the ne
groes in question. The honorable chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations, in his repoi t

on this subject, made at a previous session, insists ' Ruis actually instituted and originated the pvc-
that this Government is under treaty obligations ' ccedings, and only withdrew, as appears of rec
to indemnify these claimants. Our obligations in J ord, when their claim was merged in that pursr.- d
this respect are supposed to arise out of the 8th, ' for their benefit by the Spanish Government. C m
9th, and 10th articles of our treaty with Spain, j it be said that in a claim of this kind, pres -lit .d
which follow : to a court sitting in Admiralty, and proceeding in
"Art. 8. Incase the subjects and inhabitants of either , rem, the parties to the suit being themselves p"- s-
party, \vith their shipjiir;;, whether public and of uar,nrpri- .: ent by themselves and counsel, are not bound :-j

vate and of merchants, bf forced, through stress of weather,
pursuit of pirates or enemies, or any ottier urgent necessity
for seeking of shelter and harbor, to retreat and enter into
auy of the rivers, bays, roads, or ports, belonging to the
other party, they shall be received and treated Vvitb all hu
manity, and enjoy all favor, protection, and help; and they
shall be permitted to refresh and provide themselves, at
reasonable rates, with victualsaud all things needful for the
subsistence of their persons, or reparation of their ships,
and prosecution of theirvoyago; and they shall noways be
hindered from returning out of the .'aid ports or roads, but
muy remove and depart when aud whither they please,
without auy let or hindrance.
" Art. 9. All ships and merchandise, of what nature so
ever, which shall be rescued out of tlio hands of any pirates
or robbers on the high seas, shall be brought into some port
of either; State, and shall be delivered to the custody of the
officers of that port, in order to be taken care of and re
stored entire totho'true proprietor, as soon as due and suf
ficient proofshall be made concerning the property thereof.
': Art. 10- When any vessel of either party shall be||
wrecked, foundered, or "otliinvi<<e damaged, on the coasts
or within the dominion of the other, their respective sub
jects or citizens shall receive, as well for themselves as for
their vessels and effects, the same assistance which would
be due to the inhabitants of the country where the damage
happens, and shall pay the same charges and dues only as
tile said inhabitants would be subject to pay in a like case ;
and, if the operations of repair should require fear the whole

the decision? Isubmit to the Senate that, in my
: court, sitting anywhere, the judgment of the Su-
. preme Court, in this case, would be a bar to :;.: y
claim that might be set up by Ruis and Mon.'.z
against the negroes of the Amistad. It is a w ¦!-
| known principle throughout all civilized natiu..<.
; that adjudications in. itin of a court of Admiralty
jare conclusive against all mankind, much in .re
| are they binding upon actual parties to the pro-
! ceedings. Having submitted their claim to a co.n-
I petent tribunal; having been heard by their coun-
jsel, they are bound by the decision. They cannot
;open the question before any other tribunal, but
| must submit to the lav/ as it is declared by the'
i tribunal of their own seeking. This is !av and
common sense everywhere.
To make this more clear, allow m-J, Mr. Presi-
jdent, to suppose that the alleged niercha'i.dise in
I question, and upon the title to which the adjudi-
j cation of the Supreme Court of the United States
| was had, instead pf being negroes, lied been any
I species ofproperty acknowledged everywhere to
I benicrehandise:— any citizen of the United States

«r any part of the- cargo he unladen, they shall pay no du- ] ] ^vuitrhave lia'd a perfect right to ussc n
Md'carrlfawav' """' "" *"* "^ "''"^ ""* S"a" ' ! lo thlTproperty, on the trial ill the Unitt

iim
property, on the trial m tne United States
court. Jt could not have been claimed that t''e
treaty with Spain deprived any citizen o!'a right
-,-,-, ^ ,, to show his title to the property in question, u.-id
stractionof the treiuy between this Orovernment:the decision „,- the C0lfrt won^ ncJt onl h,,e
and that of Spain given by our Supreme Court is , sett]ed uofinit:vei yarld forevcl. ,jlc nuesi'onof th'..-.
not binding upon Spam. He says; ¦-¦ ....

and carry away.
The honorable chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations takes the ground that the con

" It is no answer to Ppa'ei, therefore, to say that this sub
ject hau been determined by the judiciary of the counny '

but would have estopped all other clainuiii ts,whiru
ever ihey might be, mucii more the very parties <
to the controversy. The fact that th-. eikt-.-d

adversely to this claim of t-nain : and it becomes necessary, ; , ,. " .J ' . c , -," -' " . ."- '
In consequence' for the executive and legislative depart- i , mercuandise consisted of humun Icings coulu .-iot
mentsof tlie Government, in replying to the demand of, diminish, though it mignt. well strei:2,aien, :\e
Spain, to construe the treaty originally, and to decide the. fcrco of this illustration. The negroes thcmselv'-s
obligations that maj arise und»r it." ;ijia(j nghtg) which the court was bound to cuii-
To this I haver in the first place, to reply that ' \ sider. No treaty with Spain could affect their \
Ruis and Montez personally, and afterwards, for i ¦ rights. The law of nations required the court to ¦:
them, the Spanish Government, appeared by our : ! give them due consideration; nor could Spain soy i
district attorney, and were voluntarily parties to '.to us, you have agreed to return our merchandise: j
this suit. They originated it. There was no claim . therefore you arc oound to maintain our claim, to .
before the court for the negroes till they presented ; such foreigners as we may have enslav ed o tid re- ]
it. Gedney libeled, not tlie negroes, buttheship "duced to a state in which they become, by our!
and cargo. The first parties appearing before !. laws, merchandise. . If acknowledged to be m-.-r- ]
the court, as claimants of the negroes, arc- Ruis ! : chandise, the title is settled by the decision of the
and Montez, who filed their libel on che 18th of , court. If not merchandise, no claim car. be m:,dc
September, 1839. They made themselves parties j for remuneration for its bus.
to the suit; and on the day folio wing, the Spanish j ; But the chairman of the Committee on Foiv:l,t.
Government appeared by the United S'.ates dis- ¦ _ Relations says it is no answer to Spain to say_lh.it
"irictTrftoriiey, who filed a claim at the suggestion j! the subject has been determinei1. by the judici.iry
of the Soanish Minister. Having- thus volunta- J of the country adversely to the claim of Spa:."..
rily become parties to the proceedings, I submit '! and that it becomes necessary, therefo're', foriue
tliat on every principle they are bound by the de- J , executive and legislative departments of the Gov-
cree. The chairman of the committee says, in his '. ernment, in replying to the demand of Spain, to
report, that " neither Spain nor the United States \ , construe the treaty originally, and to decide upon
could have been made parties in invito." This is , the obligations that may arise under n. I pro-
true;but,inpointoffact,theSpanishGovernment, ,, pose, sir, accordingly, to examine this as a n-w
by its own motion, became a party in behalf of the; and open question, without insisting on the idea
Claimants, as the record shows, -and Montez and ihat the parties? having once submitted their el. urn

4

to the adjudication of a competent tribunal, are
bound by the decision, eiid only claiming that the
f'?.cts, as found by the court, are to be taken as
true. If then we concede that it is our duty, as one
I ranch cf the leg'Yiative department of the Gov
ernment, in our examination of this subject, to
construe originally the treaty under wiiich this
claim is made, it will appear equally manifest that
>t lies no foundation in justice or equity, and that.
r.o treety stipulations existing between this Gov
ernment and Sps'.n required that the negroes in
question should have teen surrendered, or that
their supposed value should now be paid to the
claimants.

right of the several Suites to legislate respecting
slave property:
,: In mv judgment, the power over this -subject Is exclu
sively with Diesevera! rftates, and each of them has a right
to decide for itself, whether it v.iilorwill not allow persor..-
1 of this description to Ik brought within its limits, from ail-
I other State, either for sale, or lor any other purpose ; and
I also to prescribe the manner i-nd mode in which they may
1 be introduced, and to determine their condition and tieat-
! ment within their respective territories ; anil the action o I
I the several States upon th is Mibject cannot becontio.ledby
I Congress, either by virtue of its power to regulate com-
' n.erce, or by virtue of any other power conferred by tae-
! Constitution of the United States."
How. then, could this nation, by treaty, bav-i
handise,

intended to acknowledge slaves as mt-r
. , and to stipulate for their rendition, under that
>-nd here it in important to observe that theji _enerai term? if trlCy are merchandise in a na-
surrenoer of fugitive slaves, or fugitives from J'^-jifiona! point of view, then, under the Constitution
Vice, is not demandablc of right. In the absence]! of th/United States, the regulation of the com-
01 treaty stipulations, no nation can berequiredj mercfi in glaves between the Stat.-f; belongs to the
General Government, and no State could prohibit
their sale, as no State can prohibit the trade or
traffic between the States in cotton or ether mer
chandise. That Spain at the date of the trei.ty reco-jr. \?-v'
slaves as merchandise, when legally neld, ('.¦ ¦ .;
not affect the argument. "VVe have similar treati.: .
with Algiers and Tunis, in which are contr.i. jJ
stipulations for the return of the property of citi
zens of each of the contractinr States. In the

to make such surrender. Such being the law of
j nations, a stipulation by treaty for the surrender
"of slaves or fugitives from justice must be clear
and unmistakable in its terms, and cannot be
I made out by implication or construction. The.
' int>:t:t.Tir,3t be apparent, and will not be presumed.
Let us, then, examine this treaty, and see for
ourselves, irrespective of the opinions of the courts,
whose decisions have been given 'on the subject,
whether the claim of the Spanish Government
ought to be allowed by Congress. ji lr of e and amit com:i,,d»d on the 6'-h
_ A he mam reliance of the claimants is on the , I of jj j^- between ,.he United States r.f Amer-
r.mtli arrclo ot tr.e treaty of 1 . 9o, which provide , j ka and the Dey of Algiers, it was agreed that—
<! Sliould a vessel of either of the contracting parties be
cast or. shore within the territories of the otier, all prooer
assistance shall be given to the crew ; no pilhige shall be
allowed, and Hie property sl^alt remain at the disposal o/'t^c
oj'.-nen."~:European Treaties, United States Statutes, vol
ume 8, page 223.

ibdt— " -Ml j'vps and merchandise, of what nature soever, I
which ihail be resc^f-d out of the hands.of any pirates or!
rol'bf rs on the h-'gh sens, shall be brought into some portof ]
oit.iei Slate, and shall bo delivered icto the custody of the |
-.tee-1:-; of tri?.ci>crt. i a order to be taken care of, and restored |
eu'.irl n. rhe true proprietor, as soon as dee and suineient ;
rroof shall be mad*; concerning the properly thereof." j
To establish th-: claim it is necessary to show ';
thai the negroes in question are merchandise, with- ,
in :he meaning of the ninth art'cla of the treaty !

! A similar provision is contained in our troatbg'
.with Tripoli and Tunis. "When these" treaties
[ were made, Algiers held Christian captives as
. | slaves; yet, under this stipulation that prcjidrly
of "!70.V. that there has been a rescue of them on '' should remain atthedisposalof the owners, would
the high ser.» out of the hands of pirates and rob- j j it be claimed that Spanish prisoners, or those of
i-ors, and that Palis and Monlcz are the true, pro-j any other Christian nation, held by Algevine cor-
prif.'ors of the alleged merchandise, and have'"' '
sstabii.sht.-ii their title by competent proof.
1. Are the negroes to be considered merchan
dise wichin ihe true inten; and meaning of the
treaty: Admitting them, now, for the purpose of the

sairs, were to be given up as property, under the
treaty with Algiers ? Suppose an Algerine ves
sel, loden with Spanish captives, had been driven
on our coasts, and we had attempted to surrender,
und°r this treaty, the enslaved Spaniards. The
attempt would have sent a thrill of horror to the

argument, to have been, by the laws of Spain, > heart of the civilized world; and Spain, in resist-
slaves, it could not, mmyjudgmem, havebeenthe :' ance of the attempt, might justly have wasred
ie cor -1
-, of
j  .l.'iim
a--e so treated and considered in certain States of m Spain is just, and her interp
the Union; but they have never, as yet, been con- j! of 1795 correct, we should I

.•nteiUof the. tre.vy to include them under the term ; against us a war in" which she" could demand The
m.-.r6uiai\st. This nation, as a nation, does not! sympathy, if not the succor, of everv nation in
treat or consider slaves a3 merchandise. They! Christendom. Yet, if the claim now' urged by
irctalion of the treaty
 be bound to render to
sidered merchandise in such a sense as that they j the Algerineo the same assistance in reclaimino-
c.--n be voluntarily carried into a free State, and i ! captives held by them to be property, which Spain
there so'd as property. On the contrary, all or,1 demands in the present instance '
nearly r.U Jie decisions, injall the courts, of all the j! I say, therefore, that, by no just interpretation
; of the treaty of 1795, can it be held that within

Sta'es, have been to the effect, that slavery is the |
cr'-jiion of local ".aw, and that a slave carried from
a sia.veholdi-r.gSute into a free State, thereby be
comes f-ee. in the case of Groves and others us.

Slaughter, (15 Peters 'a Reports, 508,) Chief Ju
- .ice Taney thus states the law with regard to tl

s-'
the'

— within
the term " merchandise" was intended to be in
cluded human beings— black or white, heathen or
Christian— who might, under the laws of eilhir
nation, beheld as properly.
But, Mr. Presideat, I am not under the neces-

Bity of resting the argument here. If we admit
that slaves — held as such by the laws of Spain —
are to be considered " merchandise," under the
treaty of 1795, still the present claim cannot be
sustained. It remains to be proved, in order to
support the claim, that these negroes were, by
Spanish law, slaves, and were rescued on the high
seas out of the hands of pirates and robbers, and
that Ruis and Montez have shown themselves to
be the true proprietors of the alleged merchan
dise by competent proof. Let us 3ee whether
these points can be established. That the negroes
of the Amistad were kidnapped from Africa, and
that, knowing them to have been thus kidnapped,
Ruis and Montez purchased them, with the inten
tion of holding them as slaves, are conceded facts.
What was the law of Spain regarding the slave
trade in the year 1839, when these events took
place ?
I have before mo the special message of James
Monroe, President of the United States, dated
January 4, 1821, communicating to the House of
Representatives, among other papers, a letter
'from Don T yis de Onis, the Spanish Minister, in
which he announced that his Catholic Majesty,
Ferdinand VII, had concluded a treaty wilh tlie
King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, by which the abolition of the slave trade
is stipulated and agreed on, and that —
" He had received his Majesty's commands to deliver to
the President of the United States a copy of the same; his
Majesty feeling confident that a measure so couipletely in
harmony with tlie sentiments of this Government, and of
all tlie inhabitants of this Republic, cannot fail to be agree
able to him."

He adds:
"In the discharge of this satisfactory duty, I now trans
mit you the aforesaid copy of the treaty, which I request
you will be pleased to lay before the ..President." — Jiuecu-
tlvc Papers, second session, Sixteenth Coup-ess, 43.
The treaty between Great Britain and Spain, ;
thus transmitted, was not printed with the doc-i
ument containing the above communication, but
lefind it published in the " British and Foreign
State Papers, 1816-17." It. is dated and signed at
Madrid, the 23d of September, 1817. It first re
fers to the treaty of July 5, 1S14, in which the King
of Spain promised and agreed to take the sub
ject of prohibiting the slave trade into considera
tion. It then declares that his Catholic Majesty,
conformably to the spirit of that treaty, and to
the principles of humanity with which he is ani
mated, having never lost sight of an object so
interesting to him, and being desirous of hasten
ing the moment of its attainment, has resolved to
cooperate with his Britannic Majesty in the cause
of humanity, by adopting, in concert with his
said Majesty, efficacious means for bringing about
the abolition of the slave trade; and accordingly,
"Art. 1. His Catholic Majesty cngageB that tlie slave
trade shall be abolished throughout the entire dominions
of Spain, on the 3Uth day of May, 1820, and that from and
after that period it shall not be lawful for any of tlie sub
jects of tlie Crown of Spain to purchase slaves, or to carry
on the slave trade on any part of the coast of Africa, upon
any pretext, or in any manner whatever."
Article third provides for the payment, by his
Britannic Majesty, ofthesam of .£400,000 sterling
to suchperson as the King of Spain shall appoint

to receive the same, which was to be in full for all
losses previously incurred .and also for the losses
which are a necessary consequence of the abolition
of the said traffic.
On the 19th of December, 1817, the King of
Spain promulgated a royi;! ceduhi, or decree; the
first article of which is as follows:
" Art. 1. From this day forward I prohibit -forever to all -
my subjects, both in the Peninsula and in America, to re
sort to the coast of Africa, north of The e^iutor, for tliCy
purchase of negroes. All the blacks bought on those coasts
shall be declared free in the first seaport of my dominions
at which the vessel containing them shall arrive. That
vessel shall be confiscated for my rojal treasury ; and the
purchaser, the captain, the master, and the pilot shall, with
out fail, be sentenced to ten years' imprisonment in some
fortress of the Philippine Islands."
Article fourth txtends the same prohibition lothe-
coasts of Africa south of the equator, under the
same penalties, after the 30th of May, 1820.
It thus appears, that at the time when these
liegroes of the Amistad were kidnapped on the
coast of Africa, and brought by the confederates I
of Montez and Ruis into the Island of Cuba, the j
slave trade was prohibited in all the Spanish pos- j
sessions; and that by Spanish laws, the n^groe-.
thus kidnapped were of right free the moment they
reached the port of Havana; and that they were
entitled to freedom when purchased l.-y Ruis and
Montez. It appears, also, that the treaty stipulation with
Great Britain, was not made without cons-dera
tion and compensation, received by Spain. Al
though motives of humanity are stated to have
led to that treaty, yet Spain received, under this
treaty, from Great Britain, the sum of $2,000,000
i in full compensation for losses that might be occa
sioned by the abolition of the slave trade in her
colonies; a sura with which, it woivjd seem, she
ought to be satisfied, without now demanding pay
ment from this Government for fifty miserable
Africans imported into Cuba in violation of her
own laws.
There are some peculiar circumstances, Air.
President, connected with the payment of this
, sum of money by Great Britain, which, though
j they perhaps have no direct bearing on the merits
| of tins claim, I am yet tempted to lay before the
I Senate, as showing the astuteness and assurance
J of the Spanish Government in pushing their own
I interests. On the 14th of June, 1315, prior to the
' treaty with Great Eritain, the King of Spain di-
; rected the supreme council of the Indies " to de-
; liberate and give their advice upon a question of
; the highest and most urgent importance, namely,
1 whether or not the slave trade should continue
' to exist?" I have here the proceedings of this
I council containing — 1. " The report of the Coun-
' cil of the Indies to the King of Spain , recommend-
¦ ing "the immediate abolition of the slave trade;"
! 2. "The opinion of the dissentient members of
! the council against the immediate abolition of the
slave trade;" and 3. "The reply of the majority
of the council." The majority of the council

were of opinion that, not only the cause of hu
manity but the interests of the Spanish colonies,
particularly Cuba, required the immediate pro
hibition of the slave trade. They discuss the
subject in a long and extremely able report, which

6

they conclude by recommending that " his Maj
esty may be pleased 10 command that the slave ¦
trade be forthwith perpetually abolished through- '¦
out his dominions." The dissentient members, ,
in their report, take ground against the immediate
abolition, for certain reasons, among others, to,
which I desire to call the attention of the Senate. '
They say:
¦; We admit that the slave trade ought to be prohibited.
All Europe, departing from its ancient maxims, has jutt \
come to tills resolution, for the good of the human race ; ;
and it would ill become Spain 10 refuse taking part in so :
glorious a proceeding; indeed, she would gain nothing by i
t-uch a refusal." t
They then proceed to consider the subject of:
compensation for pretended losses, as follows: |
" Pulling aside, however, for a moment, the interests of ,
the American slaves, as well as Those ol iheir owners, it j
may not be improper to turn our attention to our own in- j
tere.-ts, and to the present exhausted state of our treasury, j
We 0U2'at to avail ourselves of the opportunity now offered,
to put forth against the English a demand for some valuable j
consideration as an indemnification for the losses which ,
would be consequent upon the abolition which is so much \
desired by them. This policy, which would be practiced i
by all the nations of the w"orld, has not escaped the pene- I
tratiou o*' his Majesty. Accordingly, when he consented
to prohibit the slave trade wiThin eight years, he did =o uu- '
der certain conditions, which, although we are ignorant of
their purport, have not yet been fulfilled. The English.
notwithstanding, have since continually urged that we
should reduce this term of eight years to five. In this state .
of the c1uestion,.the most natural and the best advice that ,
could ba given to his Majesty, is that he should accede '
to tlii- request, tliat he should lay stress upon the service i
which he thereby renders, and should require in co-npen- '
. sation for that service the same conditions that iia.1 pre-
\ viouslv been agreed on, or such other as his exalted judg-
.-. meet may deem more suitable to the general interest, of his
Vominious. If, instead of following this course, which is
dictated by prudence, the slave trade be immediately pro
hibited, the English will not believe we make any sacrifice,
becai.-e t'.-:n more would be conceded by us than they ask;
ill convenient openhr? would be left for stipulating any
compensation, and hiVMajcsry would lose the relief which
he has a rght to demand from a rich and powerful notion.
ft ended u.ien se< just anJ honorable a title." — BritiQ State
Pape}S, li 18—17, page £>etf.
Here, Mr. President, is presented what the
Spanish considered a very adroit piece of diplo
macy. They hud decided, in referenco-to their own
interests, to prohibit the slave trade. In the year
1814, (July 5,) they had stipulated, by treaty with
Great Britain, lo take the subject into considera
tion. The Spanish Government had come to the
coiiebisioii that humanity and interest required
this prohibition to be made; but insteadr of doing
it at once, they now proceed to make another
treaty with Great Britain, by which they stipulate
for the prohibition -of the slave trade in all their
colonies, in consideration of .£400,000 sterling for
losses which it appears were pretended. The
king is advised to lay stress upon the service he
is rendering, otherwise England will not believe
the Spanish have made any sacrifice. " No con
venient opening would then be left for stipulating
. any compensation, and his Majesty would lose
the relief he might otherwise gain." Accordingly,
a treaty was made on the 23d of September, 1817,
soon after the date of the "proceedings of the
Council of the Indies," to which I have referred.
The remuneration provided under this treaty was
ample. ¦ The Spanish Government received "re
lief" to the amount of $2,000,000 for performing
an act tvhich thwy admitted was demanded not

only by considerations of humanity, but by their
own interests. Now, sir, without indulging in
any severity of comment upon this specimen ot
Spanish diplomacy, I must say that it does not
at all diminish my opposition to the present claim,
or tend in any way to show that further remu
neration ought to be made for the alleged losses
of Spanish slave traders.
Mr President, notwithstanding the treaty stip
ulations thus solemnly made; notwithstanding
the ample remuneration received by the itmg oi
Spain, for real or supposed losses; notwithstand
ing the royal ordinance of the 19th December,
18l7, issued in compliance with this treaty, the
slave trade has been carried on from that day to
this, between the coast of Africa and Cuba, in
violation of all law, human and divine. I will not
say that the Spanish Government has connived at
this traffic, but she has not suppressed it. Run
and Montez, in whose behalf the present claim was
made, were undoubtedly engaged in it. If not
directly engaged in the trade, they were purchasers
of negroes known to be kidnapped in Africa, and
were, perhaps, liable to the penalty of the royal
ordinance of the 19th December, 1817 — ten >""-.->"
imprisonment in some fortress in the Philippine
Islands. They were themselves criminals, while
on their attempted voyage in the Amistad from
Havana to Principe, with those fifty kidnapped
negroes. The negroes were free by the express
(terms of the royal ordinance, and when they as
serted their freedom and took possession of the
,.Amistad, they committed no crime for which
!|)they could be punished by any tribunal even in
| "Spain, which should administer justice according
to the Spanish law.
It so happened that they were thrown upon our
¦ coasts, and it became the duty of our judicial tri
bunals, and is now also the duty of this body, to
apply to their case the law of nations, as well as
j the laws of Spain. If, sir, you will look upon the
¦ on;), you will see that, steering eastward by day
; and northward by night, the course resulting from
;|this would have brought the vessel to some fact
",of the shores of Europe, but for the drift of the
¦ Gulf stream. Suppose, instead of being thus
! drifted, they had landed in England or France.
"Would England have restored these negroes to
; Ruis and Montez, acknowledged violators of the
I laws of their own country ? "Would France have
1 restored them had they been thrown on the French
coast? No, sir; neitherofthesenationswouldhave
: returned the negroes to bondage; nor would they
have remunerated the pretended owners Even
; Spain herself would have been compelled to restore
' them to freedom had they been cast nv the waves on
: the Spanish coasts, if, in the administration of jus-
i tice, lier tribunals are governed by tl— treaties and
I laws of Spain. I doubt, sir, whether the

ere is id a.. '
Christendom another nation where a claim like i.his
!¦ would be thought worthy of serious consideration;
and I apprehend that the free Republic oi'tho United
i States is that Christian Government in 'the world
] more likely than any other to remunerate the male-
| factors in whose behalf such aclaim might bemade.
I . But the chairman of the Committeemen Foreign
i, Relations argues that, inasmuch as the ncroes of
1 the Amistad were shipped from Havana, on board

that schooner, under passports signed by the Gov-
ernor General of Cuba, it is not competent for the
United States to look into the evidence which con- I
tradicts these documents; and he cites, in support
of this claim, an opinion given in October, 1839,
by the Attorney General of the United States, Mr.
Grundy. This is sufficiently answered by Mr.
Justice Story, in his published' opinion in the case
of the United States vs. the Amistad, (15 Peters 's
Reports, 594,) an extract from which I beg leave j
to read to the Senate: t
" But it is argued that the ship, cargo, and negroes were I
duly documented as belonging to Spanish subjects, and this [
court have no right to look behind these documents ; that
full faith' and credit is to bo given to them ; and that they
arc to be held conclusive evidence in this cause, even
although it should be established by the most satisfactory
proofs that they have been obtained by the grossest frauds
and impositions upon the constituted authorities of Spain.
To this argument we can in no wise assent. There is noth
ing in the treaty which justifies or sustains the argument.
We do not here meddle with the point whether there has
been any connivance in this illegal traffic on the part of
any of the colonial authorities or subordinate officers of
Spain ; because, in our view, such an examination is un
necessary, and ought not to be pursued, unless it were in
dispensable to public justice, although it has been strongly
pressed. at the har*
"What we proceed upon is- this, that although public
documents of the Government, accompanying property
found on board of the private ships of a foreign nation, cer
tainly are to be deemed prima facie evidence of the facts
which they purport to state, yet they are always open to be
impugned for fraud ; and whether that fraud be in the original
obtaining of these documents, or in the subsequent fraud
ulent and illegal use of them, when once it is satisfactorily
established, it overthrow-s all their sanctity, and destroys
-iuem as proof. Fraud will vitiate any, even the most sol
emn transactions, and an asserted title to property founded
upon it is utterly void. The very language of the ninth
article of the treaty of 1795 requires the proprietor to make
due and sufficient proof of his property. And how can the
proof be deemed either due or sufficient which is but a con
nected and stained tissue of fraud ? This is not" a mere rule
of -municipal jurisprudence. Nothing is yiore clear in the
law of nations, as an established rule to regulate Their rights
and duties, and intercourse, tiian the doctrine mat the
ship's papers are but prima facie evidence, and that if they
are shown to be fraudulent, they are not to be held proof
of any valid title." * * * "In the solemn treaties
between nations, it can never be presumed that either
Stale intends to provide the means of perpetrating or pro
tecting frauds ; but all the provisions are to be construed
as intended to be applied to bona fide transactions."
The pretended passports covering the negroes
shipped on board the Amistad are therefore only
primafacie evidence, and, being clearly shown to
have been fraudulent, are not to be held proof of
any valid title.
But the majority of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, in their report, say that if it were com
petent for the United States to look into evidence
to contradict these documents, yet the United
States could not rightfully undertake to decide
questions arising under treaty stipulations made
between Spain and other nations, to which this
^Spvernment is no party; in other words, that,
5ot rjeing a party to the treaty between Spain and
Great Britain, by which she stipulated to prohibit
the slave trade, and under which she actually did
so prohibit it, we cannotinquire whether the pre
tended merchandise on board the Amistad was
really merchandise under Spanish law. To this,
I answer that the action of Spain in this regard
was officially announced to the Government of
the United States, as I have already indicated, by

express command of the King of Spain in th>- year
1818 — (Executive Papers, second session Six
teenth Congress.) This Government, therefore,
ha3 a right, and is bound to take notice of the law of
Spain on this subject; and the announcement could
only have been made with the intention that such
notice should be taken, and to enable it to be
done. How can Spain complain that we now
avail ourselves of the information solemnly given
by her Minister, by command of th - King, that,
under her laws, negroes kidnippsrl in Afiha and
sold into slavery in Cubu, are not merchandise,
but are entitled to their freedom the moment fuey
place their fttet on the soil of any Spanish colon j ?
. I cannot conceive of any reason for announcing
the existence of the treaty, except that our Gov
ernment should take official notice of its provis
ions/and give effect to'them as far as it may be
proper to do so.
We have a right, then, and it is our duty, to s;o
behind these documents purporting to he pass
ports. When we do so, we find them grossly
fraudulent; that the negroes specified therein as
Ladinoes, or skilled, acclimated, and therefore
legal, slaves, are not such, but, as all the testi
mony most conclusively shews, and as. indt-cdr
is conceded, when shipped by Ruis ari Montez,
were entitled, even by Spanish law, to their free
dom. How, then, can Senators vote to pay t'
parties who so pertinaciously, through the Spatt
ish Government, pursue this flagitious claim from
year to year? Why should they receive the sum
of ^50,000, or any other sum, from our national
Treasury, as the suf >osed value of Africans kid
napped in violation of the laws of nations and of
their own Government? Is it because it is true,
as the President, in his message, informs us, that
Cuba is the only spot in the civilized world where
the African slave trade is tolerated? In spite of
all her treaties, in violation of solemn stipula
tions — notwithstanding Spain has announced tc
our Government that the slave trade is abolished
in her colonies — still " Cuba is the only spot in
j the civilized world where the African slave trade
is tolerated." The President says this is to us
"a constant source of injury and annoyance,"
and he adds :
"We are bound by treaty with Great Britain to main
tain a naval loree on the coast of Africa at much expend
both of life aLd treasure, solely for the purpose of arresting
slavers bound to that ir-land, (Cuba.) The late seriou3 !if-
ficulties between the United State-, and Great Uri'iin
respecting the right of search, now so happily terminated,
could never have arisen if Cuba had not afforded a murket
for slaves. As lone as this market shall remain op&n, there
can be no hope for the civilization cf benighted Africa.
Whilst the demand for slaves continues in Cuba, wars will
be waged among The petty and barbarous chiefs of Africa
for the purpose of seizing subjects to supply this trade. In
such a condition of affairs it is impossible that the light
of civilization and religion can ever penetrate these dark
abodes." Yet we now are seriously urged to appropriate "
' a sum of money to remunerate the pretended own
ers of the negroes kidnapped and torn from their
native shore's, as is acknowledged and avowed
in violation of Spanish law, for the purpose of
being forever enslaved by the present claimants.
Mr. President, I am willing to go as far as truth
and justice will permit in cultivating friendly rela-

8

tio.is with Spain. The President informs us that
an sporopriation made for the purpose of remu
nerating the claimants in the Amistad case, coidd
not f.ul to exert a favorable influence on our nego
tiations wirh that country. At the same time he
informs us that our national flag has been insulted
by Spanish officials, in repeated instances; that
we have suffered outrages of such a character as
would have justified an immediate resort to war;
and th it "all our attempts to obtain redress have
ijeec '.--;3---d and defeat jd." If this be true, I can-
no'- s.je the propriety of attempting to "exert a
fa n-rnble i aA u-: nee upon nego tiations ' ' which have
lu'r-t-rto been so unfortunate in their results, by
remunerating the very men who, by keeping alive
the slave trade, put us to the expense of "main-
t-iining a naval force on the coast of Africa,"
solely for the purpose of arresting slaves bound
to Havaivi. The}'- have very nearly, it seems,
involved us in a v/.-.r with Great Britain, on the
question of the right of.9e.axcl1, "that could not

have arisen if Cuba had no^ afforded., a. market for
slaves;" a market whjch, as long as ft remains
open, expels all "hope for the civilization of be
nighted Africa." One of the most serious griev
ances, -urged by the President against the Spanish,
Government, is the "injury arid annoyance" thus '
inflicted upon us. Yet he urges us to reward the ,
criminal agents in one of the moat atrocious cases-
of kidnapping that has ever been perpetrated.
Mr. President, while at this time the Govern-i
mer.t has a high duty to perform, while the powers
of the Federal courts and of the Federal execu
tive authorities are invoked for the suppression
ef the African slave trade, I trust that no such
spectacle of inconsistency will be exhibited to the
world as that of a Government remunerating on
the one hand the guilty agents in a piratical and
inhuman traffic, which, on the other hand, if of
ficial duty is not criminally neglected, it is exert
ing all its authority to suppress within our own
borders.

i Fruited at the Congressional Globe Office/.

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39002 0039i+6i+57b