The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1857-03-27

the most lc4dtnG IoAbuI0 Ot tu0 OOusutu.
tion-s feature ON which tho Union depends,
and which secures 10 tho respective States
and their citizens IN entire equality Of rights,
privileges and immunities.
For thee reasons, I hold the compromise
act 70 have been void (; and, consequently,
that the plaintiff Scott, can claim no benefit
under 1t.
Justices Mclean and Curtis.
The next day, Saturday. dissenting
opinions were Isad BY Justios Mclean and |
Curtis, the only two members Of the Bench
now maintaining the Law Of Frsedom.-I
As judicial exposilions Of the Principles Of
The Constitution, OF the Laws Of Nations,
and the Common Law. bearing upon Hu.
man Rights, they stand unrivalled. On
the subject Of citizenship, particularly,
Judge Curtis Left nothing TO be said The
misconceptions anil miscellaneous OF Chief
Justice fancy became manifest 10 the light
Of the historical facts he presented. We
shall not attempt even a synopsis Of his
Opinion, Is We heard only the part 'ela-
ting 10 citizenship. We were moro fortu.
nato in regard to Judge Mclean, whose
argument, Il seemed to Us, furnished COM
pleie reply to the elaborate opinion Of The
Chief Justice.
He discussed the question under several
heads.
l. The locality OF Slavery As held In the
Supreme Court, and In the Courts Of the
States.
Under this head, BY q reference to the
civil law, he showed that through Europe
Slavery was limited to the locality where Il
was established by law and that without
an express compact, one nation would not
deliver up on Ascending slave 10 the ci,i-
zens OF another country.
He also showed thai, BY decision 10 the
case OF Prigg IS. the State Of Pennsylvania,
the Court held that Slavery was local, and
could exis, only by viitue OF the local law.
That IL the Constitution had not required
the rendition Of fugi,ives from labor, every
State might have manumitted every slave
that entered a non-slavsholding Stale with
impunity, rs there was no principle in the
law of nations which required the return Of
the slave.
2. The relation which the Federal Gov
ernmcn, bears to Slavery in the States.
Under this head he showed that Slavery
was local, and under the control Of State
sovereignty that the Federal Government
had no action over it, except in regard 10 q
sure nder Of fugitives from service or labor.
That slaves were spoken OF in the Constiiu-
ton ~ persons, and not as property. That
Congress could no, regulate the slave trade
among the States, and that the continuance
Of the slave trade twenty years afer the
adoption Of tho Constitution, was not o
general measure, but in favor Of such States
as should think proper 10 encourages It.
And he referred 10 tho remark OF Mr..
Madison, who was DESTROYS that no word
should be used in the Constitution which
indicated there could be property 10 man.
3. The power Of Congress 10 establish
Territorial Governments. and 10 prohibit
the introduction Of Slavery therein.
Under this head he showed, by the pro-
ceedings OF the Convention which framed
the Constitution, that the necessity Of a
power 10 establish temporary Government,
rs iniliaiory TO the establishment OF State
Governments, and 10 dispose Of the publ ,
lands, was ielt and acknowledged; that D Il
sale OF these lands was looked TO for tn,
payment OF the Revolutionary debt. ,Ant
that ample provision was made 10 establish
Territorial Governments by the 81 section
Of the 4,h article Of the Constitution, which
gave Congress power TO dispose Of, ant
make all needful rules and reg, ula,ions re
speeding the territory or other property DO
longing 10 the United States. That 10
sixty years this power was universally al
United BY all Courts, Federni and State. ant
by oil statesmen. And indicated ant
maintained The opinion IF tho Suprem,
Court in The case Of The Atlantic Tnsurano,
Co. Us Center, l Peters, Gil. 81
4. Under this head he discussed The OF
fec, Of taking slaves int n free State or Ter
ritory, and so holding them, where SLAYER,
is prohibited.
He assented 10 the doctrine clearly an
nounced in the case Of Prigg Is. Pennsyl
vania, that SlavfJry could only exist in ,
Stale where II was established by law; and
consequently, If a slave be taken where ]
is not author zed, the master could not CO
cree the slave. And that where Slavery
was prohibited, in Illinois and north OF Mis-
souri,, if slave were taken there by bi,
master, and. remained there in his service
he was II GO, under the decision of the So
preme Curt, and by numerous decisions By
the Supreme Courts OF the Southern States
These were cited largely, and relied on, as
fully sustaining the ground Of freedom, es
pecally the decisions OF the Supreme Cour
OF Missouri. That for twenty-eight year,
The cour 80 OF decision in that Court was uni,
formly in favor Of the slave, until the case
OF D.. ed Scott came before II.
=. Whether the return Of o slave. under
me control Of his master, after being en-.
tilted 10 his freedom. reduces him 10 bis
former condition.
Under this head he examined The decis
ion Of Lord Stowell, in the case Of Grace,
and numerous authorities Of the Slave
States, all OF which, excep, q few recent
cases, hold that The return Of the slave did
no, cause his former status to attach. This
was uniformly the course Of the decisions
Of the Supreme Cour, Of Missouri for twenty
eight years, until it was changed against
Dfed Scott, avowedly by The majority Of the
Court. to check the "fsll spirit Of Anti
Slavery" in the free States.
In England. slave could not be coerced
By his master, although there was no OK.
press pIOnlUiuou ugdiuet oidNeEl wv "
is no, authorized. And he alleged, from
the facts agreed 10, that The return Of bred
Scott was not voluntary, rs the fact admit
ted was "thai he was removed by his mas
ter from Fort Smelling to Missouri" which
shows that the slaves acted under the coer-
cion OF their masters, and moi under their
own volition.
6. Are the decisions Of the Supreme
Court Of Missouri, on the questions before
the Court binding, within the rule adopted
Under this head he showed that the Mis-
souri, Court refused 10 recognize the act OF
Congress or the Constitution OF Illinois,
under both Of which Drcd Scott claimed his
freedom. That this being done, there was
no case before the Court, or 1t was case
which had but ono side. And he argued
that such case may not Do followed by
the Supreme Court. And he referred 10 q
late decision Of the Supreme Court, fully
90 staining his refusal 10 follow the decision
in the case Of Died Scott.
Both Justices, Mclean and Curtis, took
/ Tho Dosition that m the Court had refused