affairs of Texas. One strong reason of the remonstrance, on the part of his constituents, was, that the nation sought to be annexed to our own had its origin in violence and fraud; an impression by no means weakened by the impulses given by the late and present administrations to push on this senseless and wicked war with Mexico. They had seen the territory of that republic invaded by the act of the executive of this government, without any action of congress; and they had seen conspirators coming here, and contriving and concerting their plans of operations with members of our own government! Amidst all these demonstrations, they had heard the bold and unblushing pretense that the people of Texas were struggling for freedom, and that the wrongs inflicted upon them by Mexico had driven them into insurrection, and forced them to fight for liberty!

There had been recent evidence afforded the country as to the real origin of the insurrection. A citizen of Virginia, (Dr. Mayo,) who for years had held offices under the late administration, had just issued a pamphlet in this city, giving a copy of a letter by himself, in December, 1830, to the President of the United States, in which he declared that, in February, 1830, the person now called President Houston did in this city disclose to himself, the author of this letter, all his designs as to this then state of the republic of MexicoTexas. What that letter contained as to the disclosure of a scheme to be executed, was now a matter of history. It disclosed the particulars of a conversation which detailed the plan of the conspiracy, since consummated, to rob Mexico of the province of Texas.

Mr. A. then inquired what were the pretenses upon which the disse verment of Texas from Mexico were justified. As early as 1824, the legislature of the republic of Mexico, to its eternal honor, passed an act for the emancipation of slaves, and the abolition of slavery; and the only real ground of rebellion was that very decree; the only object of the insurrection, the revival of the detested system of slavery; and she had adopted a constitution denying to her legislature even the power of ever emancipating her slaves!

Mr. Adams did not wish to refer the memorials to the committee on foreign affairs, because it was not properly constituted. Its chairman, (Mr. Howard,) was himself a slaveholder, and, it was feared, entertained a widely different opinion as to the morality of slavery from that held by the mass of the memorialists; and that a majority of the committee were in favor of annexing Texas to this government. It was conformable with the parliamentary rule to appoint a majority of the committee in favor of the prayer of the memorialists. This seemed to him as one of the incidents of freedom of petition itself. Six out of nine of the committee on foreign affairs were slaveholders; and he took it for granted that every member of the house who was a slaveholder, was ready for the annexation of Texas; and its accomplishment was sought, not for the acquisition of so much new territory, but as a new buttress to the tottering institution of slavery.

After a brief interruption by southern members, Mr. A. proceeded :

He said discussion must come; though it might for the present be delayed,

he believed it would not forever be smothered 'by previous questions, motions to lay on the table, and all the other means and arguments by which the institution of slavery was wont to be sustained on that floor-the same means and arguments, in spirit, which in another place have produced murder and arson. Yes, sir, the same spirit which led to the inhuman murder of Lovejoy at Alton

The chair remarked that Mr. A. was straying from the question of reference; and some conversation ensued as to his right to proceed, which he was at length permitted to do.

In the course of his remarks, he said that he and his colleagues had seen, in reading the late message of the executive, how much was not in that document as well as how much was in it. It contained much allusion to the grievances of this government at the hands of Mexico, and none to our relation with Texas. The annexation of Texas and the proposed war with Mexico were one and the same thing, though expressed in different forms. The message was adverse to the prayer of the memorialists. Under the decision of the chair, he should reserve what he had to say further on this point until the mouths of members inclined to advocate the cause of freedom upon that floor, should be permitted to be opened more widely; if, indeed, there was any hope that that time should ever arrive.

Mr. Wise said there was no need, at present, of any such reference as had been proposed. Texas had attempted to open a negotiation for admission; but her overture had been declined on the ground of our relations with Mexico. No memorial in favor of such a measure had ever been before the house. It would be time enough to discuss the subject dwelt upon with so much feeling by the gentleman from Massachusetts, when it should come up regularly for discussion. He therefore moved to lay the motions of reference on the table; and having refused to withdraw his motion at the request of Mr. Rhett and Mr. Dawson to enable them to reply to Mr. Adams, the question was taken, and decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 127; nays, 68.

On the 13th of June, 1838, the committee on foreign affairs reported that there was no proposition pending in the house either for the admission of Texas as a state, or for its territorial annexation to the United States. And in October it was announced in the official paper (Globe) that, since the proposition submitted by Texas for admission into the Union had been declined, the Texan minister had communicated to our government the formal and absolute withdrawal of that proposition.

In August, 1839, a vessel lying near the coast of Connecticut, under suspicious circumstances, was captured by Lieut. Gedney, of the brig Washington, and taken into New London. This vessel was a schooner, called L'Amistad, bound from Havana to Guanaja, Port Principe, with fifty-four blacks and two passengers on board. The former, four nights after they were out, rose and murdered the captain and three of the crew; then took possession of the vessel with the intention of returning to Africa. The two passengers were Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montez, the former owning forty-nine of the slaves, and

most of the cargo; the latter claiming the remaining five, all children from seven to twelve years of age, and three of them females. These two men were saved to navigate the vessel. Instead, however, of steering for the coast of Africa, they navigated in a different direction, whenever they could do so without the knowledge of the Africans. It appeared that the slaves had been purchased at Havana, soon after their arrival from Africa. Cingues, who was the son of an African chief, and leader of the revolt, with thirty-eight others of the revolters, was committed to trial; and the three girls were put under bonds to appear and testify.

A demand was soon after made upon our government by the acting Spanish minister in this country, for the surrender of the Amistad, cargo, and alleged slaves, to the Spanish authorities.

The children were brought before the circuit court of the United States, held at Hartford, in September, on a writ of habeas corpus, with a view to their discharge, on the ground that they were not slaves; proof of which was given by two of the prisoners who testified that the children were native Africans. The discharge was resisted by Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for the Spanish claimants, who stated that the persons were libeled in the district by Capt. Gedney, his officers and crew, as property; they were also libeled by the Spanish minister as the slave property of Spanish subjects, and as such ought to be delivered up; and they were libeled by the district attorney, that they might be delivered up to the executive, in order to their being sent to their native country, if it should be found right that they should be so sent. The counsel presumed that this (circuit) court would not, under this writ, take this case out of the legitimate jurisdiction of the district court, as, if the decision of that court should not be satisfactory, the matter could be brought before this court by appeal.

It was maintained by Mr. Baldwin, counsel for the children, that they had been feloniously and piratically captured in Africa-contrary to the laws of Spain consequently, they were not property, and therefore the district court was ousted of its jurisdiction. The district judge had not issued his warrant to take these individuals. This he could not do without first judicially finding that they were property. The warrant issued by his honor to the marshal was to take the vessel and other articles of personal property. These children were not, and never could become personal property. They formed a part of a number of persons, who, born free, were captured and reduced to slavery. They had come here, not as slaves, but as free; and we are asked first to make them slaves, and then give them up to the Spaniards. But we can only deliver up property; and before they can be delivered up, they must be proved to be property. Mr. Staples, associate counsel for the Africans, said Montez had the hardihood to come into a court of justice in our free country, and in contravention of our treaty with Spain, to ask the surrender of these human beings, when the very act he desired us to countenance, would, by his own sovereign's decree, have subjected him to forfeiture of all his goods and to transportation;

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 court 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 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.

Mur

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. der 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 per

sons; they therefore prayed to be dismissed. The counsel for Captain Gedney denied that the Africans had anything to do with the question now before the It was a claim for salvage; and the parties were the libelants, (Gedney and the other officers and crew of the Washington,) and Ruiz and Montez, owners of the vessel and cargo. Gedney and others claimed salvage for saving the property of these Spaniards, who did not resist the claim.

The district attorney presented a claim in behalf of the United States for the vessel, cargo and negroes, with a view to their restoration to their owners, who were Spanish subjects, without hindrance or detention, as required by our treaty with Spain.

The interpreter being absent and sick, the court adjourned to New Haven in January next.

In January, the decision of Judge Judson was given. The blacks who murdered the captain and others on board the schooner, were set free. But if they had been whites, they would have been tried and executed as pirates. The schooner having been proved to have been taken on the "high seas," the jurisdiction of the court was established. The libel of Gedney and others had been properly filed, and the seizers were entitled to salvage. Ruiz and Montez had established no title to the Africans, who were undoubtedly Bozal negroes, or negroes recently imported from Africa in violation of the laws of Spain. The demand of restoration made by the Spanish minister, that the question might be tried in Cuba, was refused, as by Spanish laws the negroes could not be enslaved; and therefore they could not properly be demanded for trial. One of them a Creole, and legally a slave, and wishing to be returned to Havana, a restoration would be decreed under the treaty of 1795. These Africans were to be delivered to the president, under the act of 1819, to be transported to Africa.

An appeal was taken from the decree of the district judge to the circuit court, judge Thompson presiding, who affirmed that decree. And the government of the United States, at the instance of the Spanish minister, here appealed to the supreme court of the United States. That court affirmed the judgment of the district court of Connecticut in every respect, except as to sending the negroes back to Africa: they were discharged as free men.

A deep interest seems to have been taken by the British government in the case of these Africans. Their minister in this country, Mr. Fox, was instructed to intercede with our government in their behalf; and their minister in Spain was directed to ask for their liberty if they should be delivered to the Spaniards at the request of the Spanish minister at Washington, and should be sent to Cuba; and to urge Spain to enforce the laws against Montez and Ruiz and any other Spanish subjects concerned in the transaction in question.

A disposition was manifested on the part of our government to effect the delivery of the captives to the Spanish authorities, at Cuba, to be there dealt with according to the laws of Spain. The friends of the Africans in this country deprecated such event, apprehending that the freedom of the negroes might not be obtained through the Spanish tribunals.