Editing United States v. The Amistad (section)

===Applicable law===
The Spanish categorized the Africans as property to have the case fall under [[Pinckney's Treaty]] of 1795. They protested when Judge [[William Jay (jurist)|William Jay]] construed a statement by their Minister as seeming to demand
: "the surrender of the negroes apprehended on board the schooner ''Amistad'', as murderers, and not as property; that is to say founding his demand on the [[law of nations]], and not on the treaty of 1795."<ref name=Congress/>

The Spanish pointed out that the statement to which Jay was referring was one of the Spanish minister "speaking of the crime committed by the negroes [slave revolt], and the punishment which they merit." They went on to point out that the minister had stated that a payment to compensate the owners "would be a slender compensation; for though the property should remain, as it ought to remain, unimpaired, public vengeance would be frustrated."<ref name=Congress/>

Judge Jay took issue with the Spanish minister's request for the Africans to be turned over to Spanish authorities, which seemed to imply that they were fugitives instead of misbehaving property, since the 1795 treaty stated that property should be restored directly to the control of its owners. The Spanish denied that it meant that the minister had waived the contention of them being property.

By insisting that the case fell under the treaty, the Spanish were invoking the [[Supremacy Clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]], which would put the clauses of the treaty above the state laws of Connecticut or New York, where the ship had been taken into custody
: "no one who respects the laws of the country ought to oppose the execution of the treaty, which is the supreme law of the country."<ref name=Congress/>
However, at that point the case had already risen out of the states' courts, into [[federal district court]].

The Spanish also sought to avoid talk about the law of nations, as some of their opponents argued that it included a duty by the U.S. to treat the Africans with the same deference as would be accorded any other foreign sailors.

[[John Quincy Adams]] would argue that issue before the Supreme Court in 1841:

: The Africans were in possession, and had the presumptive right of ownership; they were in peace with the United States: ... they were not pirates; they were on a voyage to their native homes ... the ship was theirs, and being in immediate communication with the shore, was in the territory of the State of New York; or, if not, at least half the number were actually on the soil of New York, and entitled to all the provisions of the law of nations, and the protection and comfort which the laws of that State secure to every human being within its limits.<ref>{{cite book |first=John Quincy |last=Adams |year=1841 |title=Amistad Argument |quote=As argued before the US Supreme Court. |publisher=Kessinger Publishing }}</ref>

When pressed with questions concerning the law of nations, the Spanish referred to a concept of [[Hugo Grotius]], who is credited as one of the originators of the law of nations.{{clarify|reason=What was the purpose of this legal argument?|date=August 2017}} Specifically, they noted that
: "the usage, then, of demanding fugitives from a foreign Government, is confined ... to crimes which affect the Government and such as are of extreme atrocity."<ref name=Congress/>