New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-04-01

d;,tipcton was made ~ 10 tie rga. Of suffrage
(which must be taken - the absolute test of cih-
zen,bip), CO The ground Of color; and 90 tho case
also stood at the period Of the adoption of the
Federal Constitution, unless perhaps little Della
ware ought TO be thrown in as having Tin that spirit
Of To,yism for which, during the Revolution, che
had been 80 potorious) adopted by that time the
exclusive policy. Yet, for the sake of giving to
the Constitution Of the ytted States censtruc-
ton in conformity to seveholdipg prejudioes, and
of doing what lies in 81 y power Of the Court To-
ward rendering emancipation impossible and Slavery
perpetual. the slaveholding majority on the Bench
Of the Supreme Court of the United States under.
take to ignore altogether and utterly to disregard
the laws and usages Of eleven States and to set up
the laws and ussges of two or at most Of three
States as absolutely decisive of the prevailing sentl-
ment and policy at the time Of the adoption of the
Federal Constitution, and of the meaning and In
tent of it's trainers as to who were or could be
citizens under it Everybody knows that at the
time of the adoption Of the Federal Constitution
there were two States, to wit: Georgia aud South
Carolina rabd for the continuation Of the African
Slave Trade-snd another, North Carolina, which
leaned toward the same policy. Precisely upou
the style Of logic adopted by fancy and his brother
shareholders on the question Of negro citizenship it
might be argued and maintained that at the time of
the adoption of the Constitution of the United States
the sentiment Of the country was universal in favor
Of the African Slave Trade, and that Africans were
not regarded as any thing but articles of merchan
disc. Indeed, critical examination of the opinion
will show that it does actually 60 that length
thereby laying the foundation for a revival Of the
Slave Trade, on the ground that under the Consti'
tuition of the United States negroes are regarded
only as property, and that the power of regulating
trade conferred on Congress does not extend to the
prohibition of trade in any specific article.
Here is an opinion which, in the interest Of slave
holding undertakes in the face and eyes of the laws
of eleven States, to set up the policy and opinions
of three States Is the exclusive basis of cOnstitu
tional Interpretation! Here is an opinion which,
in the interest of slaveholding, undertakes to say
that in the Interpretation Of the Constitution of the
United States the cotemporaneous opinion and prac-
tice of Virginia and South Carolina shall 60 for
every thing, while the cotemporaneous opinion of
New York and Massachusetts shall 60 for nothing
Are we not justified in denouncing an opinion OF
this sort a. a "slaveholders' decisiOn"l Arc we
not justified in setting down the pretended detsrm-
nation of points Of constitutional law upon such .
or e-sidsd basis a. "war upon Northern rights"
waged on behalf of Slavery from behind the bench
of the Supreme Court
The decision of the FIVE slsvehoding Judges that
bred Scott is not and could not be citizen Of tho
United States, amounts, in fact, to just this: 1t
takes from the Northern citizens of this Union-if,
indeed under such decision, they can deserve to
be any longer called citizens-all claim to have
any attention paid to their opinions in determining
questions of constitutional law, and vests that right
exclusively in the shareholders. If such decision
a. this may not properly be designated as slaye-
"bolders decision" we think it would be rather
difficult 10 make one that would
The Union knows perfectly well that the five
Shareholders who made this decision did not, BY
any means, content themselves with stripping free
negroes of tho right to sue in the Courts of the
United States. They went great deal further |
than that. So far TIE thing could be done BY an
extra; judicial decision, they struck deadly blow
not merely at the rights of free negroes but at tho
rights of free men and Free States. They sub
stantiay laid down the doctrine that our boosted
democraticsl government has for its main object
not the protection Of the rights Of human nature
az many have fondy supposed, but the protection
of some two or three hundred thousand slave
owners and savebreeders in thea enjoyment Of
their human property, and Of their indefeasible
right to take it with them into whatever portion of
the territory of the United States they may choose
to 20. They undertook to declare that the nom
slaveholdiDg people of the United States, vast ma
orty a. they are, have no authority of any kind 10
protect aDy portion of the territory Of the United
States from the intrusion of savebo!ding and those
institutions of sristOcrstcal barbarian which slave
holding always carries with il. It is not merely
war upon Northern rights which we charge the
Court with having made II is war upon free
labor; il il war upon non-saveholders, whom tho
Court seeks to deprive of the power to protect
themselves against the competition Of slave labor,
and to deliver over, bound hand and foot, 10 the
absolute control Of q slaveholding Oligarchy.
The report gains ground that the new Admins
tration intends to dispense with that rather Orna.
mental than useful sppendage termed an Organ;