Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-11-28
Prom tho indianapolis Journal, 14tb.
A DEED SCOTT CASE IN INDIANA.

1t Ia singular and interesting fact, that tn,
same point decided by the Supreme Court of tht
United States in the celebrated bred Scott cnse
rs nom pending before the Supreme Court Of Iadi
ana
| 1t seems that some months ago, Dr. william
a. Bowes, of Orange county, brought into thi,
State seven slaves 10 be kept here temporarily
and then taken back Kentucky. After keep
ing them here for some time he did take them
back.
In the meantime proceedings were instituted in
the Orange Common Pleas Court against Bowles
charging him with bringing negroes into this State
contrary 10 our Constitution and Laws, BOtcics
detenled on tie grOand that tie negroes ccre siarc8
and that he lad rigM, under The Dred Scott dccis
ion to bring them into Maiana. The defence was
oveTrucd by the Court Of Common Pleas, and he
was fined forty dollars From this judgment he
appeals to the Supreme Court Of Indiana.
The case seems to involve this question for the
consideration Of the Court. namely. Shall the
prohibition in our Constitution against the bring
ing of negroes into lndiata prevail shall it be-
come nullity by the Uverpowering authority OF
the United States Supreme Court? 1t should be
recollected that our Constitution, far this
question is concerned, makes no difference be
tween slaves and free negroes 1t provides that
No negro or mulato shall come into, settle in
this State" And both the Constitution and STAT
ute make it penal offence in any one to aid any
negro or muiatto i'll the infringement Of the con
stitutlonal provision. Nor can any one doubt ttnt
the provision applies to all negroes and mulattoes
VIII ther bond or free. Our Supreme Cuurt has al.
ready. in the case Of DArkShire Us the State,
Ind. r. 3S9, held that the provision above cited
must he enforced to Il free negro: and that
too, under circumstances the most revolving. The
negro, Berkshire, had brought negro into the
State. and be was held liable to punishment un-
der this prohibition, for doing though he inter
n q u IN bruuubt hpl
here. lie was in fact held liable 10 the penalty U
the law for encouraging his own wife to remain
with him here-the Court prOnouncing, however
that the marriage itself WAS void. The effect o
the decision was that negro lawfully residing
here could not bring his own wife into the State.
Now, it remains to be seen whether since no
mau may bring free negro ir.to the State, and
since not even free negro lawfully resident here
may bring into the State his wife or child, n
stakeholder can bring his slave bere. If cur Su-
premo Court decide that he may, it will virtually
nulify the constitutional provision above referred
to, or at least limit its operation to free negroes
thereby giving the preference to slaves and
slavery over free negroes and freedom, giving to
the slavehaider privilege denied to every non
slavehrldlng man in Indiana.
But if, on the other hand, our Supreme Judges
hold that the Judgment against Dr.. Bnwes is
right, thoy must do st in the very teeth of the de
cisIn in the Dred Scott case for assuredly, il
TINT decision is right BOwles had right to bring
his slay into Indiana.
30 IL appears that our Supreme Judges are III
this dilemma; they must either hold owr
State Constitution on the subject nullty, and
"verrule it, or they must override the Supreme
Court OF the United States. Which will they do
Can they take middle ground and say that the
Constitution operates on free negroes only, and
not ON slaves? Should they take this middle
ground. they will directly Ylay into the hands of
the stakeholder and give to him, aud to him only
of all the men in thia free country, the inestima
bic right Of taking negroes whoever he plcasos
This our Supreme Judges will hardly do. We
sympathize with their lIonors and hope that they
may have "a safe devcrance."