Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1857-03-20
supremely cursed or blest.- bred Scott

question. They have gone - FAR as to re-
solve in their national conelavcs tia, they
would RESIST" the agitation Of slavery in
Congress or out OF IL. And yet this memo
rable Administration Of slavery democracy
commences It's existence by agitation OF this
prescribed snbjcct. Mr.. buchanan COM
.menccs II by denying the people OF Terri
tory the right TO regulate Slavery until such
Territory has sufficient inhabitants to form
State. Aud the Supreme Court echoes
the same sentiment in absolute violation Of
the express language Of the Constitution via
The citizens OF each state shall be entitled
10 all privilege. AMI immunitles Of citizens
Of the several states.
80 hero Is the stump and the Supreme
Court combined to " crush out Freedom
in tbs country. Here is the black democ-
racy combined with sectional Supreme
Court, no, to establish liberty, bu, to Per.
petuatr aud extend slavery. And what az.
grayatcs the whole character OF this unuat-
ur,l state Of things j. the manner in which
the supreme Court has wandered from its
legitimate path and sought TO establish
extra judicial doctrines which dad no, con.
corn the bred SCOT, case.
Tho following from the New York Post
will show to some extent the rial character
Of th, case better than whole volumes.
"ltv will probably turn out that the Su.
prcmc Cour, Of the United States. in the
suit in question has decided much les than
has been supposed. Drcd Scott sued Tor
his Freedom In the form Of an action u ircs-
pass, in the Circuit Cour, Of the United
States, within and cor the di,,ric, of Mis-.
sour. under ihos, provisions u the CJn'ii.
tuition u the United States and II ihc Judi.
ciary ac, which allow a cililrn of ono state
% prosecute a sui, Tor hi legal rights gains,
the citizen OF another state IN that court.
Sclu sued. claimed g. o., citizen of the
state Of Missouri Tho question ups1 hs
nuin. and the real controversy between the
parties, was whether DO was slave 90 ircr.
But a preliminary objection was raised in
the Circuit Court, by plea in abatement.
that scot, was . nero, Of African decent,
whose ancestors w,rc slaves, and that. thcrr.
tore. De was not a citizen of the State Vt
Mis,ouri, aud that beng 50, tho court had
no Jurisdiction, a. the sui, was no, between
citizens ol different states. The OBJECTION
W., o,crrulci, the plea In abatement held
bad, and thcryupon the defendant pleaded
over. a. u Is cAllcl-,hli -, abandoned hi,
plea In aiutrmcn; and sct up his real de-.
fence, which was, that Scott was slave
The Circuit Court ~ held, rendered judc.
ment Tor the defendant. Scuit then took
out writ of error to the supreme Court
u the United State. The preliminary ob.
,,ctiJu vas here again rai.,i iha, SCOTT was
not q ciiifrn. and that the court had no Ju.
risiictiou Of the action. and Of course could
no, render any valid Judgment upon the
question whether be- was u slave or not. IL
i, oh,i1u. o, ,hr simplest understanding
that, IL toe cour, had NJ jurisdiction of the
action. i, could no; decide whether Scou
was IRE, or not, uulcs. the decision of that
question were necessary 10 decide the point
ui jurisdiction. But It j. stated, presume
correctly, that the mapri,y Of the Judee'
va, Of opinion that no negro. BE- be ire or
slave, could b, q ci,iicnol the United State,
or a citizen Of any state, IN the sense ct the
Constitution u the United states. II was,
therefore. In the view Of the court, entirely
immatcrial, as regard. the question Of juri'-
diciion. whether Scott was irry ur not, and
entirely unnecessary 20 Ta's, o,sn inciisn.
tally. upon The merits OF the clse. Tie ac-
tual decision of the court is thus stated hy
Chief Justice fancy in hi, publi,hci opiu.
ION ~ appears 70 the court that the
plaintiff - not ar:sr Of Missouri, nor
citizen OF the United State. who could sur
in the United State, Court, hr Court can
cir, no. judgment, and hence tie suit mus,
be dismissed Tor want Of jurisdiction The
court thus declared that it had no juris4ic-
ton OF the case, and refused to render juds.
men, upon the merits.
" IT, actual DECISION seems necessarily TO
involve the doctrine only, that no negro Is a
citizen IN sense Of the federal constitution,
entitled To sue as suca in the court. Of the
United States. so lar, the decision OF the
supreme Court may probably be s,il fairly
to extend. The roin, that a negro Is not a
citizen was decided in the same way s1mc
twenty years or more agS in the state Of
Connecticut, during period Of considerable
excitement on the subject.
Z" Ba, how the recon, decision Of the Su.
prcmc Court involves a denial Of the rish,
OF Congress to lcsi,late for the territories,
orol the people Of a territory Ia lesislate i)r
itself upon the subject OF slavery. or the
startling proposition that me Constitution
,IaJ',,is, Starry ~ all he srriiors If hs
UaHod Ndis'-that is, that it confcrs upon
every citizen the absolute and lnielcl.blc
right to introduce slaves into any territory,
and to hold or sci, them there, and consc-
quently upon Others to buy and hold, is not
80 apparent. Those were questions arising
upon the merits, and the merits the court
declined to decide, whatever opinions
particular judges may have eIprc.scd.-
While, therefore, we submit TO the authority
L.