Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1847-04-22

The Decision Of the Supreme Court of the
United States on the Van Zanlt case,

UnlCtQ OldlGS OIL IllG van AdlldC CdSG
We earnestly request the attention of the read
er to the opinion of the Supreme Court in the
Van Zandt case, published on the first page of
the Era. 1t is the official report, and therefore
authentic and accurate.
Against the character of the Supreme Court
we shall bring no accusation. Some OF the judi
ges we know to be honorable, conscientious men;
the fair presumption is, that none of them would
deliberately violate the principles of justice but
they themselves will not pretend to exemption
from the infrmtes of Judgment, or the pervert-
ing influences of prejudice incident to human
nature
! It's not our purpose to examine at length the
decision in the Van Zandt case We were pre-
pared for this by the decision of the Court in
the well known case of Prigg Us. Pennsylvania.
In both cases freedom has reeled under blow
that shonld have been struck by any other hand
than that of the highest court in the Union and
these decisions have done, and are destined to do
more, in unsetting the popular, reverence for law,
and spreading the sentiment Of disunion, than
the action of all other departments of the Gov
eminent.
In England, so far back as we can trace the
record, the Judiciary has been the guardian of
popular rights. The rule in her courts has ever
been, to construc every doubtful point in favor of
Right against Power-Freedom against Despot-
ism Thepractice of veinage was extinguised,
more by the force of judicial decisions than by
any other single cause. The record of the jeaI-
ousy with which the courts scrutmlzed every
claim for yein service; of the technical diff
cuIties they nterposcd against the claimant Of
the liberal interpretations they uniformly made in
favor of the freedom of the alledged villein, must
command the admiration of every heart that
beats with sympathy for the rights Of man. In
all these respects, the course OF the Supreme
Court of this country exhibits a most marked
and humilatng contrast. Technicalities that
might be used legally for the benefit Of person
claimed as slave, are overruled; irregularities
of form that might Justly be decided to vitiate a
claim to services are overlooked doubtful points
are interpreted and, where the letter of the law
does not SUFFICE its supposed reason is alleged, in
favor of the claimant-of power against right
of amonstrous exception against the natural law
of liberty
If this be not a fair representation, then have
we studied the decisions ofthis Court in the Prigs
and Van Zandt cases to no purpose. No ont
can read the report in the latter case, the argu
ments of gentleman Seward and Chase, and tht
decision Of the Court, without clearly seeing tina
there was great room for various construction
on many technical points essential for the deter
mination of the case, but that the Court uniform
ly adopted that construction which was bes
adapted to sustain the claims of slavery w
infer that such will be its policy hereafter; tina
the Just rule which construes literally for free
dom and Right, rgdly for Slavery and Power
is not to be the rule of Interpretation Of the Su
preme Court of the United States
Another remarkable feature of this decision is
the studious avoidance of single expression
which can be construed into the slightest conces
sion to generous pre5udice (f you please) il
favor of human liberty. We do not recolec
that we have ever seen Judicial opinion touch
ing human rights so shockingly cold -booded-
The Circuit Court of Oho,* in delivering it
opinion, spoke freely of slavery as being purel
municipal institution, an exception to natura
right, and frankly recognized the existence of
public sentiment in favor of Liberty, while argu
ing that it should not be suffered to lead to tn
violation of positive law Not so the Suprem
Court. You could not infer from any part of it
decision that liberty was of more worth than sla
very; or that the latter was not the Fundamental
law Of Union, while the former was an exception
Hitherto, that Court, in referring to slaves, ha
spoken of them in the language of the Constitu
ion, as persons held to service or labor but
throughout this decision, they are either style
"slaves" or property" While the public min
has advanced in humanity, the Supreme Judicia
nv of the country has refrigerated
We call the attention Of the press Of all parte
to this subject No one would wish to see court
of justice overawed by popular clamor, but thei
action on all questions involving human libert
ought to be constantly watched by the people an
the peoples sentinels; to be scrutinized closely
commended where it merits praise, denounce
where it deserves censure. No department of
Government instituted by the people should fee
itself irresponsible to public sentiment.
THE case, it will be recollected, came original
before this courJudge Mclean delivering the opinion