The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1857-04-08
For he Register.


is it lawq It is law to Dred Scott and
Dred must submit 10 it. 1t is decided
that he cannot come into tho Supreme
Court Of the United States, for the pros
ecution of any right, because he is q
black man ! He ia sent from the Court
an outlaw, and told tha! because he is
Of African decent, he has no rights that
white men are bound to respect
Weil,- must be admitted that it 10
all over with Dred He is hopeless
boudman-his chains rivetted by Roger
i. Taney and four other slave holding
judges. All over, we say, because it is
probable that tie said Eve judges will
live until Dred shall be worn out 10 his
bondage, and sball have gone beyond tho
reach Of oppression. If i, should hap
pen to be otherwise If Dred should ONT
live these judges, be might outlive their
law, and might have the benefit of true
and righteous law. The judges do not
make law. They decide what, in their
opinion, the law is; and while they re-
main the Court, Or a majority Of it, and
remain Of the same opinion, that opinion
is, de facto, law, so far as Drod is con.
cerned and if another Dred should, du-
ring that time, presume to mako his op-
pearance before them, and ask to have
his rights recognized and enforced, he
would, upon an inspection Of his color,
be turned out oe Court, in like manner.
But these judges will not live always.
Death, by the way, is a great blessing to
tho world And it is great deal better
to bavo the limit 20 than 700 years.
Dred will, doubtless, say SO; and the
whole of the prosecuted. outlawed Afri
can race in the United States will res
pond, amen. What would become of the
world if the autediluvian longevity were
TO be restored L. is wicked enough
now. Add six or seven hundred years
to the maximum duration OF human life,
and how long before the world, judges
and all, would be fied for another
delugc2
But what do you mean by saying that
the judges will not live always2 mean
that they will be succeeded by other
judges, who may have different opin.
ion as to what the law is; and who may
declare, a. they will have right to 60,
that the opinion given by the said FIVE
slave.holding judges is not, and never
was law But are not the decisions of
the Supreme Court irreversible2 Ian
swer-No. Repeated decisions, upon
full argument, acquicsced in by the peo-
plo, may be regarded rs settling what
the law is; but no single decision frrn,
any Court can claim immunity from re-
vorsal-e specially if, like the late decs.
ion, it is made in the midst Of great po-
litical excitement, upon question Gi-
rcctIy connected with that excitement,
and by judges who owe their offoes to
one of the parties, and whose relation to
the race whom their decision dooms to
ou,lawry, is such as to begot, by almost
inevitable necessity, contempt for it,
and chronic disregard Of its rights. -
Can the indicators Of this decision hayc
a face to claim that it is irreversblc,
when, in deciding the main points in tho
case, the Court have reversed the whole
current of judicial decisions, from tho
foundation Of tho government to the
present time
In speaking of the reversiblencss Of
understood ns referring to tho decision
of the question properly before the Court
for decision. A decision Of any other
question would ba ertra-judicial-not,
properly speaking a judgment of the
Court, and not, with any propriety of le-
gal language, to be spoken Of as roversi-
Bile. The decision that Dred Scott was
not citizen Of the United States was q
judicial decision, because the question of
citizenship was properly before the
Court, upon q plea to the jurisdiction.
That decision may DO reversed /; and it
will be. unless death, or truth, or both
shall fail to do their work. But the de.
csion that the going Of slave, with tho
consent Of his master, into State where
Slavery is prohibited. does not work his
freedom and that Congress had no
right to prohibit Slavery in the Terrific.
res Of the United States west and north
of Missouri, needs no reversal, for it is,
of itself, utterly null aud void, aud Of no
manner Of force or effect.
For an illustration, let US suppose the
following case. John Jones brings an
action of ejectment in the Circuit Court
! ofthe United States, against Samuel
Smith. Jones, Smith aud the land are
all in the State Of Vermont, Smith
says the Court has not jurisdiction Of
the case, because citizen Of this State
has no right to bring a suit against au.
other citizen of the same State. in such
a ease, before Court of the United
States. The Court decides that il has
no jurisdiction; yet, nsyertheless,it pro.
ceeds to try the question of title to the
land. and upon the verdict of jury, SOL
emnly adjudges that John Jones has no
title. How much forcs would there be
in this adjudication Could the judg.
mcnt be plead in bar by Smith, in sub.
scquent action of ejectment by Jones in
the proper Court of this State2 OF
course not, because the Court, having
decided that it had no Jurisdiction Of
the case, had, Of right, nothing further
to do with 1t, The case and the parties
were all out Of Court the moment it
Al. T.