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 prisouers 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;
