The Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, Ohio) 1853-1861, 1857-03-19
The Dred scott Dccision.

Court was pronounced by Chief Justice Ia
ney en- the 9th int.
This case has excited universal attention,
and the opinion Of the Court has been looked
forward to with deep interest. The question
was one involving the constiulionality of the
Missouri Compromise, and it was most anx
iously hoped that the Court, entitled as it is,
from its high judicial authority. to the respect
of the civilized world, would have some re-
gard to the universally received opinions of
mankind upon the inalienability of the abso
lutte rights of man, and upon doubtful points
would have given at least liberal construc-
ton Of the constitution in favor of freedom
hut we have been disappointed, and as citi-
xens of this pro1d Republic. we are compelled
to feel the humility forced upon our country
by this decision of the Court-snd we cannot
but feel that the constitution, SO much loved
and cherished by the American people, now
lays poweress at the feet Of Court fallen
from the eminence it once occupied, to fawn
at the feet of the slave power. We see it no
more the uistaneI constitution of a free
people it is no longer thrown to the breeze
as the virgin sheet upon whi h our fathers
wrote the charter of our liberties Jays like
SLAVE at the feet of slavery, petitioning the
Court, its master, for favor to extend the area
of human freedom, but all in vain for millions
of freemen, the Congress Of the United State
and even the constitution itself, are declared
insufficient to give liberty to single human
being upon the broad and fertile plains of the
mighty empire OF the west. And that con-
stitution, in which the word slave does no.
appear, has no other effect under this decision
than to circumscribe liberty in the territories
of the United States, while slavery there is
permitted unrestrained action.
The principal points made in the decision
1. Negroes, whether slaves or free-that
is, men OF the African race-are not citiz ms
Of the United States by the Constitution.
2. The ordinance of 1897 had no indepen-
dent constitutional force or legal effect subse
quenty to the adoption of the constitution,
and could not operate of itself to confer free
rtory on negroes not citizens by the Consti
tI,ion.
3. The provision Of the act of 1920, COM
monty called the Missouri Compromise, in so
far as it undertook to exclude negro slavery
from and communicate freedom and citizen
ship to negroes in the northern part of the
Louisiana cession, was legislative act ex
oeedin the powers of Congress, and void and
of no legal effect to that end.
In deciding these main points, tie Suprem"
Court determined also the following incident
al point ..,
/. The pexpression territory and other
properly" of the Union in the Constitution,
applies in terms only to such territory as the
Union possessed at the time Of the adoption
Of the Constitution.
2. The rights of citizens of the United
States emigrating into any federal territory,
and the power of the Federal Government
there, depend on the general provisions of
the Constitution, which define in this, as in
all other respects, the powers of Congress.
3. AS Congress does not possess power it.
self TO make enactments relative to the per-
sons or property of the citizens OF the United
States in federal territory other than such as
the Constitution confers, so it cannot consti-
tutionally delegate any such powers to Ter
ritorial Government organized by it under the
Constitution.
4. The legal condition of slave in the
State of Missouri is not affected by the tenn
porary sojourn of such slave in any other
State, but on his return his condition still de-
pends on the laws of Missouri. No..
The portion of this decision which refers to
the unconstitutionality of the Missouri Com
promise, is entitled to particular notice, as it
in most decided manner marks the change
of political and legal opinions upon great ma
tional and constitutional questions, and how
easily even Courts swerve from duty to sub
serve party interests. In 1890, when this
compromise was agreed upon by Congress,
the President, James Monroe, Southern
man, submitted this question to his Cabinet:
"Is the proviso, as it stands in the Missouri
bill, constitutional or no. ?" and his Cabinet
answered, ait is" This Cabinet consisted
Of John Q. Calhoun, William Writ, John Q.
Adams, and Mr.. Crawford. Of the sound
Constitutional abilities of this Presidon. and
his Cabinet, the country have had too many
proofs to require any comment. In addition
to this, the bill was passed by an almost
unanimous vote of the sJuthern Senators and
in the House Henry Clay used all his parla-
mentsry tact ard influence as Speaker, in fa-
vor of lis passage, and Daniel Webster, the
soundest constitutional lawyer the country
has ever known, always supported the consi
tuiionaliiy of the proviso. Nor is this all, for
in l848 southern members sought to extend
it through the territory which we had acquired
L -. O -.