by the municipal law. Now, it is not pretended, here that, even if these negroes were unlawfully introduced, they have been declared free. Can, then, this court adjudge that these negroes were free in the island of Cuba, even if the fact of their recent importation be proved? Much more can they assume to do it, by putting their construction on a treaty, not of the Unit ed States, but between two foreign nations; a treaty which those nations have the sole right to construe and act upon for themselves. But if satisfied that the Governor-General has been imposed upon, and the documents fraudulently obtained, still, is the fraud to be punished and the error to be rectified in our courts, or in those of Spain? What says Sir William Scott, in the case of The Louis, when asked what is to be done if a French ship laden with slaves, in violation of the laws of that country, is brought into an English port: "I answer," says he, "without hesitation, restore the possession which has been unlawfully devested; rescind the illegal act done by your own subject, and leave the foreigner to the justice of his own country." Can a rule more directly applicable to the present case be found? 586*] "The courts of no *country," says Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of The Antelope, "execute the penal laws of another." In the case of The Eugenia, where a French vessel was liable to forfeiture under the laws of France, for violating the laws prohibiting the slave trade, Judge Story directed, not that she should be condemned in our own courts, but that she should be sent to France. "This," says he, "enables the foreign sovereign to exercise complete jurisdiction, if he shall prefer to have it remitted to his own courts for adjudication." This, he afterwards adds, "makes our own country not a principal, but an auxiliary in enforcing the interdict of France, and subserves the great interests of universal justice." Are not these the true principles which should govern nations in their intercourse with each other; principals sanctioned by great and venerated names? Are not these the principles by which we would require other nations to be governed, when our citizens are charged, in a foreign country, with a breach of our own municipal laws? And is it not productive of the same result? Do we doubt that the courts and officers of Spain will justly administer her own laws? Will this court act on the presumption that the tribunals of a foreign and friendly nation will fail to pursue that course which humanity, justice, and the sacred obligations of their own laws demand! No nation has a right so to presume, in regard to another; and, notwithstanding the distrust that has been repeatedly expressed in the progress of this cause, in regard to the Spanish tribunals and the Spanish functionaries, yet a just respect towards another and a friendly nation, the common courtesy which will not suppose in advance that it will intentionally do wrong, oblige us to believe, and warrant us in so doing, that if the laws of Spain have been violated; if its officers have been deceived; and if these negroes are really free; these facts will be there ascertained and acted upon, and we shall as "auxiliaries," not principals, best "subserve the cause of universal justice." If this view be correct, and if the evidence is sufficient to prove the property of the Spanish subjects in the island of Cuba, the only question that remains to be considered is, whether the acts of the slaves during the voyage changed their condition. It has been argued strongly that they were free; that they were "in the actual condition of freedom;" but how can that *be maintained? If slaves by the laws [*587 of Spain, they were so on board of a Spanish vessel as much as on her soil; and will it be asserted that the same acts in the island of Cuba would have made them free! This will hardly be contended. No nation recognizing slavery admits the sufficiency of forcible emancipation. In what respect were these slaves, if such by the laws of Spain, released from slavery by their own acts of aggression upon their masters, any more than a slave becomes free in Pennsylvania, who forcibly escapes from his owner in Virginia? For this court to say that these acts constituted a release from slavery would be to establish for another country municipal regulations in regard to her property; and, not that only, but to establish them directly in va riance with our own laws in analogous cases. If the negroes in this case were free, it was because they were not slaves when placed on board the Amistad, not because of the acts there committed by them. It is submitted, then, that so far as this court is concerned, there is sufficient evidence concerning this property to warrant its restoration pursuant to the provisions of the treaty with Spain; and that, therefore, the judgment of the court below should be reversed, and a decree made by this court for the entire restoration of the property. Mr. Justice Story delivered the opinion of the court: This is the case of an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court of the District of Connecticut, sitting in admiralty. The leading facts, as they appear upon the transcript of the proceedings, are as follows: On the 27th of June, 1839, the schooner L'Amistad, being the prop erty of Spanish subjects, cleared out from the port of Havana, in the island of Cuba, for Puerto Principe in the same island. On board of the schooner were the captain, Ransom Ferrer, and Jose Ruiz, and Pedro Montez, all Spanish subjects. The former had with him a negro boy, named Antonio, claimed to be his slave. Jose Ruiz had with him forty-nine negroes, claimed by him as his slaves, and stated to be his property, in a certain pass or document, signed by the Governor-General of Cuba. Pedro Montez had with him four other negroes, also claimed by him as his slaves, and stated to be his property, in a similar pass or document, also signed by the Governor-General of Cuba. On the voyage, and before the arrival [*588 of the vessel at her port of destination, the negroes rose, killed the captain, and took pos. session of her. On the 26th of August the vessel was discovered by Lieutenant Gedney, of the United States brig Washington, at anchor on the high seas, at a distance of half a mile from the shore of Long Island. A part of the negroes were then on shore at Culloden Point, Long Island, who were seized by Lieutenant Gedney and brought on board. The vessel, with the negroes and other persons on board, was brought by Lieutenant Gedney into the District of Connecticut, and there libeled for On the 7th of January, 1840, Jose Antonio Tellincas, and Messrs. Aspe and Laca, all Spanish subjects, residing in Cuba, filed their claims, as owners to certain portions [*590 of the goods found on board of the schooner L'Amistad. On the same day, all the libelants and claimants, by their counsel, except Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montez (whose libels and claims, as stated of record, respectively, were pursued by the Spanish minister, the same being merged in his claims), appeared, and the negroes also appeared by their counsel; and the case was heard on the libels, claims, answers, and testimony of witnesses. salvage in the District Court of the United | Montez, confederating with Ferrer (captain of States. A libel for salvage was also filed by the Amistad), caused them, without law or Henry Green and Pelatiah Fordham, of Sag right, to be placed on board of the Amistad, to Harbor, Long Island. On the 18th of Septem- be transported to some place unknown to them, ber, Ruiz and Montez filed claims and libels, and there to be enslaved for life; that, on the in which they asserted their ownership of the voyage, they rose on the master, and took posnegroes as their slaves, and of certain parts of session of the vessel, intending to return therethe cargo, and prayed that the same might be with to their native country, or to seek an asy"delivered to them, or to the representatives lum in some free State; and the vessel arrived of Her Catholic Majesty, as might be most about the 26th of August, 1839, off Montauk proper." On the 19th of September, the Attor Point, near Long Island; a part of them were ney of the United States for the District of sent on shore, and were seized by Lieutenant Connecticut, filed an information or libel, set- Gedney and carried on board; and all of them ting forth that the Spanish minister had offi- were afterwards brought by him into the Discially presented to the proper department of the trict of Connecticut. government of the United States a claim for the restoration of the vessel, cargo, and slaves, as the property of Spanish subjects, which had arrived within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, and were taken possession of by the said public armed brig of the United States; under such circumstances as made it the duty of the United States to cause the same to be restored to the true proprietors, pursuant to the treaty between the United States and Spain: and praying the court, on its being made legally to appear that the claim of the Spanish minister was well founded, to make such order for the disposal of the vessel, cargo and slaves, as would best enable the United States to comply with their treaty stipulations. But if it should appear that the negroes were persons transported from Africa, in violation of the laws of the United States, and brought within the United States contrary to the same laws, he then prayed the court to make such order for their removal to the coast of Africa, pursuant to the laws of the United States, as it should deem fit. 589*] *On the 19th of November, the Attorney of the United States filed a second information or libel, similar to the first, with the exception of the second prayer above set forth in his former one. On the same day, Antonio G. Vega, the vice-consul of Spain, for the State of Connecticut, filed his libel, alleging that Antonio was a slave, the property of the representatives of Ramon Ferrer, and praying the court to cause him to be delivered to the said vice-consul, that he might be returned by him to his lawful owner in the island of Cuba. On the 7th of January, 1840, the negroes, Cinque and others, with the exception of Antonio, by their counsel, filed an answer, deny. ing that they were slaves, or the property of Ruiz and Montez, or that the court could, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or under any treaty, exercise any jurisdiction over their persons, by reason of the premises; and praying that they might be dismissed. They specially set forth and insist in this answer, that they were native born Africans; born free, and still of right ought to be free, and not slaves; that they were, on or about the 15th of April, 1839, unlawfully kidnapped and forcibly and wrongfully carried 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 purpose of being there unlawfully sold as slaves; that Ruiz and Montez, well knowing the premises, made a pretended purchase of them; that afterwards, on or about the 28th of June, 1839, Ruiz and On the 23d day of January, 1840, the District Court made a decree. By that decree the court rejected the claim of Green and Fordham for salvage, but allowed salvage to Lieutenant Gedney and others, on the vessel and cargo, of one third of the value thereof, but not on the negroes, Cinque and others; it al lowed the claim of Tellincas, and Aspe and Laca, with the exception of the above-mentioned salvage; it dismissed the libels and claims of Ruiz and Montez with costs, as being included under the claim of the Spanish minister; it allowed the claim of the Spanish vice-consul for Antonio, on behalf of Ferrer's representatives; it rejected the claims of Ruiz and Montez for the delivery of the negroes, but admitted them for the cargo, with the exception of the above-mentioned salvage; it rejected the claim made by the Attorney of the United States on behalf of the Spanish minister, for the restoration of the negroes under the treaty; but it decreed that they should be delivered to the President of the United States, to be transported to Africa, pursuant to the Act of 3d March, 1819. From this decree the district attorney, on behalf of the United States, appealed to the Circuit Court, except so far as related to the restoration of the slave Antonio. The claimants, Tellincas, and Aspe and Laca, also appealed from that part of the decree which awarded salvage on the property respectively claimed by them. No appeal was interposed by Ruiz or Montez, or on behalf of the representatives of the owners of the Amistad. The Circuit Court, by a mere pro forma decree, affirmed the decree of the District Court, reserving the question of salvage upon the claims of Tellincas, and Aspe and Laca. And from that decree the present appeal has been brought to this court. The cause has been very elaborately argued as well upon the merits as upon a [*591 motion on behalf of the appellees, to dismiss the appeal. On the part of the United States it has been contended, 1. That due and sufficient proof concerning the property has been made to authorize the restitution of the vessel, cargo, and negroes to the Spanish subjects on whose behalf they are claimed pursuant to the Treaty with Spain of the 27th of October, 1795. 2. That the United States had a right to intervene in the manner in which they have done, to obtain a decree for the restitution of the property, upon the application of the Spanish minister. These propositions have been strenuously denied on the other side. Other collateral and incidental points have been stated, upon which it is not necessary at this moment to dwell. Before entering upon the discussion of the main points involved in this interesting and important controversy, it may be necessary to say a few words as to the actual posture of the case as it now stands before us. In the first place, then, the only parties now before the court on one side are the United States, intervening for the sole purpose of procuring restitution of the property as Spanish property, pursuant to the treaty, upon the grounds stated by the other parties claiming the property in their respective libels. The United States do not assert any property in themselves, or any violation of their own rights, or sovereignty, or laws, by the acts complained of. They do not insist that these negroes have been imported into the United States in contravention of our own slave trade acts. They do not seek to have these negroes delivered up for the purpose of being transported to Cuba as pirates or robbers, or as fugitive eriminals found within our territories, who have been guilty of offenses against the laws of Spain. They do not assert that the seizure, and bringing the vessel, and cargo, and negroes into port, by Lieutenant Gedney, for the purpose of adjudication, is a tortious act. They simply confine themselves to the right of the Spanish claimants to the restitution of their property, upon the facts asserted in their respective allegations. In the next place, the parties before the court on the other side as appellees, are Lieutenant Gedney, on his libel for salvage, and the negroes (Cinque and others), asserting themselves, in their answer, not to be slaves, but 592*] free native Africans, kidnapped in their own country, and illegally transported by force from that country, and now entitled to maintain their freedom. the property of the subjects of either State had been taken possession of within the territorial jurisdiction of the other, during war. The eighth article provides for cases where the shipping of the inhabitants of either State are forced, through stress of weather, pursuit of pirates, or enemies, or any other urgent necessity, to seek shelter in the ports of the other. There may well be some doubt entertained whether the present case, in its actual circumstances, falls within the purview of this article. But it does not seem necessary, for reasons hereafter stated, absolutely to decide it. The ninth article provides "that all ships and merchandise, of what nature soever, which shall be rescued out of the 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 restored entire to the true proprietor, as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the property thereof." This is the article on which the main reliance is placed on behalf of the United States for the restitution of these negroes. To bring the case within the article it is essential to establish, First. That these negroes, under all the circumstances, fall within the description of merchandise, in the sense of the treaty. Second. That there has been a rescue of them on the high seas, out of the hands of the pirates and robbers; which, in the present case, can only be, by showing that they "them- [*593 selves are pirates and robbers; and, Third. That Ruiz and Montez, the asserted proprietors, are the true proprietors, and have established their title by competent proof. If these negroes were, at the time, lawfully held as slaves under the laws of Spain, and recognized by those laws as property capable of being lawfully bought and sold, we see no reason why they may not justly be deemed within the intent of the treaty to be included under the denomination of merchandise, and, as such, ought to be restored to the claimants; for, upon that point, the laws of Spain would seem to furnish the proper rule of interpretation. But, admitting this, it is clear, in our opinion, that neither of the other essential facts and requisites has been established in proof; and the onus probandi of both lies upon the claimants to give rise to the casus fœderis. It is plain beyond controversy, if we examine the evidence, that these negroes never were the lawful slaves of Ruiz or Montez, or of any other Spanish No question has been here made as to the subjects. They are natives of Africa, and were proprietary interests in the vessel and cargo. kidnapped there, and were unlawfully transIt is admitted that they belong to Spanish sub-ported to Cuba, in violation of the laws and jects, and that they ought to be restored. The treaties of Spain, and the most solemn edicts only point on this head is, whether the re- and declarations of that government. By those stitution ought to be upon the payment of sal-laws, and treaties, and edicts, the African slave vage or not. The main controversy is, whether these negroes are the property of Ruiz and Montez, and ought to be delivered up; and to this, accordingly, we shall first direct our at tention. It has been argued on behalf of the United States that the court are bound to deliver them up, according to the Treaty of 1795, with Spain, which has in this particular been continued in full force, by the Treaty of 1819, ratified in 1821. The sixth article of that treaty, seems to have had, principally, in view cases where trade is utterly abolished; the dealing in that trade is deemed a heinous crime; and the ne groes thereby introduced into the dominions of Spain are declared to be free. Ruiz and Montez are proved to have made the pretended purchase of these negroes with a full knowledge of all the circumstances. And so cogent and irresistible is the evidence in this respect, that the district attorney has admitted in open court, upon the record, that these negroes were native Africans, and recently imported into Cuba, as alleged in their answers to the libels " in the case. The supposed proprietary interest of Ruiz and Montez is completely displaced, if we are at liberty to look at the evidence or the admissions of the district attorney. If, then, these negroes are not slaves, but are kidnapped Africans, who, by the law of Spain itself, are entitled to their freedom, and were kidnapped and illegally carried to Cuba, and illegally detained and restrained on board of the Amistad, there is no pretense to say that they are pirates or robbers. We may lament the dreadful acts by which they asserted their liberty, and took possession of the Amistad, and 594*] endeavored to regain their native country; but they cannot be deemed pirates or robbers in the sense of the law of nations, or the treaty with Spain, or the laws of Spain itself; at least so far as those laws have been brought to our knowledge. Nor do the libels of Ruiz or Montez assert them to be such. This posture of the facts would seem, of itself, to put an end to the whole inquiry upon the merits. But it is argued, on behalf of the United States, that the ship, and cargo, and negroes were 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 be given to them; and that they are 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 nothing 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 Cuba; because, in our view, such an examination is unnecessary, and ought not to be pursued, unless it were indispensable to public justice, although it has been strongly pressed at the bar. 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, certainly 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 fraudulent and illegal use of them, when once it is satisfactorily established it overthrows all their sanctity, and destroys them as proof. Fraud will vitiate any, even the most solemn 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 that proof be deemed either due or sufficient, which is but a connected and stained tissue of fraud? This is not a mere rule of municipal jurisprudence. Nothing is more clear in the law of nations, as an established rule to regu595*] late their rights, and duties, and intercourse, than the doctrine that 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. This rule is familiarly applied, and, indeed, is of every day occurrence in cases of prize in the contests be tween belligerents and neutrals, as is apparent from numerous cases to be found in the Reports of this court; and it is just as applicable to the transactions of civil intercourse between nations in times of peace. If a private ship, clothed with Spanish papers, should enter the ports of the United States, claiming the privileges, and immunities, and rights belonging to bona fide subjects of Spain, under our treaties or laws, and she should, in reality, belong to the subjects of another nation, which was not entitled to any such privileges, immunities, or rights, and the proprietors were seeking, by fraud, to cover their own illegal acts, under the flag of Spain; there can be no doubt that it would be the duty of our courts to strip off the disguise, and to look at the case according to its naked realities. In the solemn treaties between nations it can never be presumed that either State intends to provide the means of perpetrating or protecting frauds; but all the provisions are to be construed as intended to be applied to bona fide transactions. The seventeenth article of the treaty with Spain, which provides for certain passports and certificates, as evidence of property on board of the ships of both States, is in its terms applicable only to cases where either of the parties is engaged in a war. This article required a certain form of passport to be agreed upon by the parties, and annexed to the treaty. It never was annexed; and therefore, in the case of The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheaton, 1, it was held inoperative. It is also a most important consideration in the present case, which ought not to be lost sight of, that, supposing these African negroes not to be slaves, but kidnapped and free negroes, the treaty with Spain cannot be obligatory upon them; and the United States are bound to respect their rights as much as those of Spanish subjects. The conflict of rights between the parties under such circumstances, becomes positive and inevitable, and must be decided upon the eternal principles of justice and international law. If the contest were about any goods on board of this ship, to which American citizens asserted a title, which was denied by the Spanish claimants, there [*596 could be no doubt of the right of such American citizens to litigate their claims before any competent American tribunal, notwithstanding the treaty with Spain. A fortiori, the doctrine must apply where human life and human liberty are in issue, and constitute the very essence of the controversy. The treaty with Spain never could have intended to take away the equal rights of all foreigners who should contest their claims before any of our courts to equal justice; or to deprive such foreigners of the protection given them by other treaties, or by the general law of nations. Upon the merits of the case, then, there does not seem to us to be any ground for doubt that these negroes ought to be deemed free; and that the Spanish Treaty interposes no obstacle to the just assertion of their rights. There is another consideration growing out of this part of the case which necessarily rises in judgment. It is observable that the United States, in their original claim, filed it in the alternative, to have the negroes, if slaves and Spanish property, restored to the proprietors; the general principles of maritime law, is always deemed a just foundation for salvage. The rate allowed by the court does not seem to us to have been beyond the exercise of a sound discretion, under the very peculiar and embar. rassing circumstances of the case. Upon the whole, our opinion is that the decree of the Circuit Court, affirming that of the District Court, ought to be affirmed, except so far as it directs the negroes to be 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 be dismissed from the custody of the court, and go without day. or, if not slaves, but negroes who had been | prietors of the ship and cargo; and such as, by transported from Africa, in violation of the laws of the United States, and brought into the United States contrary to the same laws, then the court to pass an order to enable the United States to remove such persons to the coast of Africa, to be delivered there to such agent as may be authorized to receive and provide for them. At a subsequent period this last alternative claim was not insisted on, and another elaim was interposed, omitting it; from which the conclusion naturally arises that it was abandoned. The decree of the District Court, however, contained an order for the delivery of the negroes to the United States, to be transported to the coast of Africa, under the Act of the 3d of March, 1819, ch. 224. The United States do not now insist upon any affirmance of this part of the decree; and, in our judgment, upon the admitted facts, there is no ground to assert that the case comes within the purview of the Act of 1819, or of any other of our prohibitory slave trade acts. These negroes were never taken from Africa, or brought to the United States in contravention of those acts. When the Amistad arrived he was in possession of the negroes asserting their freedom, and in no sense could they possibly intend to 597] import themselves here as slaves, or for sale as slaves. In this view of the matter, that part of the decree of the District Court is unmaintainable, and must be reversed. The view which has been thus taken of this case, upon the merits, under the first point, renders it wholly unnecessary for us to give any opinion upon the other point, as to the right of the United States to intervene in this case in the manner already stated. We dismiss this, there fore, as well as several minor points made at the argument. As to the claim of Lieutenant Gedney for the salvage service, it is understood that the United States do not now desire to interpose any obstacle to the allowance of it, if it is deemed reasonable by the court. It was a highly meritorious and useful service to the pro10 L. ed. Mr. Justice Baldwin dissented. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Connecticut, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court that there is error in that part of the decree of the Circuit Court, affirming the decree of the District Court, which ordered the said negroes to be delivered to the President of the United States, to be transported to Africa, in pursuance of the Act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1819; and that as to that part, it ought to be reversed; and, in all other respects, that the said decree of the Circuit Court ought [*598 to be affirmed. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed, except as to the part aforesaid, and as to that part that it be reversed; and that the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to enter, in lieu of that part, a decree that the said negroes be, and are hereby declared to be free, and that they be dismissed from the custody of the court, and be discharged from the suit and go thereof quit without day. 855 |