New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-12-01
A "DPED SCOTT CASE" IN INDlAs,

II lisa singular snd interesting fact, that tie nan.
MONT decided by the Supreme Co,t Of the uspI
States in the celt brsted Dred SOFT case nov u,S
ing before the Supreme Court Of IOdiacs.
n,eer,s that some months sgo DR.. Wn. A. BovjSa
Orange County brought into this State seven slavss "a
be kept here Temporarily and Their taken back 10 Req
tuchy. After keeping them here for some time 10 ID
axe them back.
In the mean time proceedings were instituted ia Tia
Orsrge Common Pleas Court against BOvss, csssviu,
him with bringing negroes into this State century, 3
our Constitution and laws. Borlfs defended n IL
ground hst the negroes rere slgres, ard tia. " lad
riglt, under the Dred Scot decision 70 bring lion ia
indiana: This defence wss oveuuled by the Con- a
Common Pleas, ard he was fined $40. From thL jsis
me IT he sDpeals 70 the Supreme Court OF Indiana
The &c, seems TO involve the question for The Con.
sderation Of the Court, namely: shall the prohibhN
in our Constitution againet the bringing Of neToss mo
Tniispa prevail or shall It become q nullty BY Ia
overpowering authority of the United States Saprena
Cont 1t should be recols cted that Consituoa
60 aI rs this question is concerned, raases no difference
between slaves and free negroes. Ii provides hx
mo negro or mulltto shall elme INTO 0! settle IN us
State" And both the Constitution and statute mako
Il q peral offsnse in sny one to aid AbysnsSfo %
muIstto in tie infringement OF this Constitutional pro.
vision. Nor eau spy one doubt that the provsoa %.
pes TO al negroes and mulsttoes, whether bond OF e
Our Supreme Court has already, In the case Of BSk.
shire VS. the State II Ind X. 3s9 held thst The pro
vision above cited must be enforced ss 70 free negro
ar that too under circumstances the most revolving.
The negro, Baikshire, had brought negro INTO the
State ard he was held liable TO punishment under
this prob btion, for doing, though he nsernariM
with her as soon as he had brought her here. Ne va
in fact held liable TO the penalty Of the JAW Tor o.
coursging his own wife to remain with bin hsre-As
Court prorouncrg. however, that the marriage isA
was void. The effect Of The decision was hdsswgs
lawfully residing here could not BRING has oca r iEs
The STATE. ,sT
Now, Il remains TO be seen whether, since 10 nAa
NAV bring free negro into the State, and sinos a
even free negro lawfully resident here may bin
into the State bis own wife or child, ssvehsd9 ~
brig his slave here. IL our Supreme Comt dseid
pr, vifiop above referred 10, or at least limit lie ops
tion to free negroes-thereby giving the prefsssscs
| slave SDd Slavery over free negroes and Freedom
giving &c the slsveholder privilege deaed 10 ever
| Ior slsveholding man in Indiana.
But if, on the other hsrd, our Supreme Js6fa h0d
| that the judgment against DIR. Bowles 70 nshs @sY
mat Go IL in the very teeth of the decision in tue bred
Scott Gaze for essuredly il that decision Is right,
Bowles had RIG ht TO bring bis slaves into lpdsna
81 IL appears that Supreme Judges are IN thu
6i ums; they must either hold our own StstA Con'
suiior en- the subjec. nullisy aud override II, o.
they must override the Supreme Court Of the United
States. Which will they DOL Cse they take middle
ground ard say that the Constitution operates On nee
negroes only, aud not on slaves should hey taIe
ths middle ground they will directly play INTO tbs handa
of the slavehol6er, and give to him, and 70 han osy
Of ell the In this free country, the icsstlnsho
light Of taking negr wherever he peases ms cor
Supreme Judges viii hardly do. We sympahss WIN
their Horors and hope that they may have - ,ass
deliyeIance." lind. State Jeuspa.