The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1857-04-18
The bred Scott Case.

Constitution, that party has been put to the
, desperate shift of turning all their batteries
. upon the court itself. How they expect tc
: revolurionize or reform the judicial opinion;
of that court is not very clearly explained
but the court can be vehemently abused
nevertheless, and although no law can bs
changed or airy other practical object at
tanned, it appears to serve very well as ma
terial for the manufacture Of Republican
thunder in the absence of anything better
But to give their denunciations pungency
and point, they fire guns that must recoil,
and do themselves moro damage than the
enemy they aim at. They have got into tho
way o: grossly disappearing the decision
they SO much denounce, SO that one can lat
terly get no correct understanding from the
republican papers Of what has really been
! decided.
Let US take glance Of the case. A Re.
publican paper before US says, the decision
nulifies the ordinance Of 1887; makes the
holding of slaves lawful in all the states
and territories of the Union; violates tina,
clause Of the constitution which makes the
citizens Of one state equally citizen of all
the states, &c, &c. Now not an iota of all
this and the like is Immediately or remotely
true. The bred Scott decision covers Just
three points.
!. That negroes cannot under the Consti-
tuition be citizens of the l.. S.
?. That a slave, taken by his master from
slave state into free state, and then re-
: turning with his master to slave state,
continues TO be slave. And
8. That Congress has no power under the
( Constitution to prohibit the immigration Of
slave holders with their slave property, into
the territories Of the L. S.
This is the whole sum and substance Of
the decision, and with the exception of the
not subject to the reproach of being new.
The point that negroes cannot be citizens
of the U. S. has been maintained by at least
half the Supreme Courts Of the northern
states, by two-,hirds in the southern states,
by the State department at Washington un-
der half dozen different secretaries, and
by various attorney generals of the L. 5,
Including VIM. Writ and Caleb Cushing.
A Connecticut decision is so elaborate and
pointed on the subject. that we refer to the
vol and page where it may be found. The
case was that of The State cf Conneetisut
VS.. Prudence CraIdaU and is reported a,
length commencing on p. 80 vol. 10, Con
necticut Reports. The book is in the Su-
preme Law Library at Ottawa, we believe
We could refer to 30 other like decisions. /,
Congress also tacitly decided the point in the
same way over and over in extending the /.
right OF naturalization only to white persons
But say our republican friends, does not /
his conflict with that clause Of the Consti- .
luton which says, The citizens Of each .
tate shall be entitled 10 all the privileges
md immunities Of citizens in the several
states Massachusetts,, for instance, ad-
nits negro TO all the rights OF citizenship
Does not this decision deprive a citizen OF
of his rights in the State of
Missouri: The clause in the Constitution I
refer to persons who were citizens At the B
time the Constitution was adopted. In some
States. at that tine, residence Of ten years
vas necessary TO entitle an alien TO citizen
hip, in others 20 years, others 8 years, &c.
The constitution made citizens of the L. :
# al At the time Of lis adoption who we're
itizens Of any one state, and made pro-
r
uralization thereafter This is what the
lausc Of the Constitution refers TO, and no
hing more. Otherwise, Massachusetts,
night al this day. by admitting foreigners
o the rights Of citizenship within Her Dor
lers in one year, as Illinois has actually done
n csrtrin cases in six months, give them all
he rights Of citizens Of the United States,
n spite Of the naturalization laws. Any
tate can make negroes or foreigners citizens
f such State whenever they please, but
annot make them citizens Of the {. 5.
The 81 point in the decision of the Su-
rene court, in reference to slaves return.
lg voluntarily from free to slave states. has
cen so uniformly held, that no respectable
lwycr disputes the point. Abundance of
.7glsh decisions sustain the point, Justice
tory, :.bolitionist as he was, maintained the
ision OF record. Besides, the Supreme
'ourt WAS by law Obliged to follow the de-
ision of the Supreme Court of Missouri on
he subject. 50 that it is not even Judge
l. b.. Il. D
he decision or this point is falsitied by the
epublicsn papers is discraceful- They say
authorizes any southerner" TO hold slaves
] any free state in the Union. False, and
ley know H. II bred Scott, while in a
zee state, had sued for his freedom, he would
ave received it. He lost it by returning /;
to slave state.
In reference to the last point, which nulli-
es the Missouri Compromise, all we have
say is, that countless numbers of the best
IwycrS in the country have entertained the
,me opinion, and for little one-horse re-
ubEcan city or country editor to set up his
pinion, warped as it is by the most besotted
rejudice, against that of the Judges of the
Ipreme Court of the L. s., is so farcically
nd ludicrously self sufficient and arrogant,
: to excite only ridicue and contempt
confess, it would have pleased US better,
the supreme court had decided that the
.rritorics were by the law Of nature free,
nd that congress could neither establish
or prohibit slavery in them but they have =
eoided differently, and all good citizens .
lust submit. Those who do not are rebels
'ractically, however, the decision amounts
D nothing, for congress has decided, not
My by the measures Of 1850, but also by
ne Nebraska bill, that the people of the ter