New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-03-12

petus.ion Of Slavery has spread black and rapid a.
Summers hunder. cloud over the judicial horizon
Of the South, and the State Courts are no seen
striving as /. were TO Gu do each other IN SEEKING
toreLder the condition OF Slavery hopeless and TO
that end sIe bow srtfaDy eva1ing, aud now boldly
tran pnrg under foot, their former decisions.
In the case Of Drsd Scott, Mr. Gamble, the Chief
Jcstice OF ri, souri, berg man OF soue consc ence
and COT sistercy adhered to the former decisions OF
the Court, and pronounced bred SOFT and his
family 10 be free. The majority OF the Court re-
fused 10 sustain Scots claim, on the newly taken
ground that, however be and his family might be
free by the Law Of Illinois, they as judges Of Mis-
souii were under no obligations Of comity or other
wise to enforce the laws Of Illinois. Comfy, they
irsisted, was q matter merely of discretion, aud
time. not being as they were when the former deci-
,iops were rendered, they considered themselves
released from any obligation to pay any regard to
thote decist ns' The Supreme Court of Missouri
hayirg thus refused to protect him in bis liberty,
Dred Scott brought his sui. in the Circuit COur! Of
the United States for the District Of Missouri,
wheIce The case finally came before the Supreme
Court at Washington.
And now for Mr. Justice Nelson position 10 re'a
ton to the doctrines put forth respectively BY the
majority and BY the minOri Of tina. tribu 1aL 10
a single word, bis position is that Of skalk.
Knowing Mr.. Justice Nelson's auteceds ots as we
do. we must set it down rather 10 want OF courage
than to spy lingering sentiments in favor Of freedom
and humanity that be did not follow the example
- = ~ br1a hny xrtbh
the slayeboldng members of the Court. Bu: the
same lack of courage operated, also, to prevent
him from rsbing the dispeasure of bis owners by
afectir e. in any representative character on behsf
Of ibe North, sentiments ard IDEAS which do not
sbpertsn to moral ard intellectual nature, and
wbicb, ed, he could hardly have attempted to
express wi bout breaking down under the unaccus-
toned burden. He, therefore, looked about for
some loophoe through which be could slip, so as
allie to escape tie lash Of Northern indis-
nation and the being snubbed or having his
ears pulled by bis Southern associates on the bench
As to all the points brought forward in the opinion
of be majority he is perfectly mum. Even on the
quettion whether bred Scott, being negro, could
sue in q Court of the United States, he has not
word to ssy. He concurs, indeed, with the ma
jorty Of the Court in their Judgment dismiss Nc the
appeal, but on ground peculiar to himself and t.
which they did not refer. He takes the gt0uni
that the freedom or slavery of bred Scott is ques
ton exclusively Of Missouri law. and that, having
been dec ded by the Supreme Court OF Missouri,
tie Supreme Court of the United States has nothing
10 DO but to conform 10 that decision
Yet the very ground upon which the Supreme
Court Of Missouri base their decision would seem
ipperatiyely to demond tho utter erence OF the
Federal Court. TIE Missouri Cour. admits that
by the laws Of illinois and by the Missouri Com
promise Act, bred Scott aud his family are free;
but they soy that being Missouri Court, it is none
If their business to enforce the law Of flno aud
the enactments of Congress in reaion to the terri
tory north OF Missouri and west tf the Mississippi.
As an act Of comfy, they might d, it; but being
at the momeLt in fit of i'll humOr, they WON'T. II
that does Lot male out case for the interference
of The FEDERAL Judiciary, we should Ike to have Mr..
Jostice Nelson nfyrm US what could Even If this
had been purely question Of Missouri Law, the de-
cision Of the Supreme Court Of ssouri
would bave been in no way binding on the Supreme
Court Of the United Sta'e. This point is We'll dis
posed Of in q decision of the Supreme Court made
scarcely syear ego. In the opinion of the Court in
that csse (P,ase w. Peck, l6 Howard, 500 the
I, Ito airg passage occuK:
There e. it is true many dicts TO be found 10 our
decisions averDg .bsf the Courts Of the United States
bound to follow the de crions of the State Cour
the construction Of their osn laws But although hi,
be correct yet rather strong expression OF gen.
relrue il carnot be received as the annuncation Ola
maxim OF universal application. Accordingly our re.
ports furnish many cases Of exceptions to IT. 10 all
where there settled construction Of the laws
of State by its higtest adicature, estabi.hsd by I'd
mittf precedent is the practice OF the Courts OF tie
UDed STATE 70 receive and adopt L., with Dut criticism
or further irquiy When the decisions Of The Sta>
Court are consistent, do not fel bound to fol
low the lat If il is coLrery 10 our own convictions
sDd much mole is this the case ~here, after long
course Of consistent decisions Rsr light sudd,Hiy
slTngs up, or an ercited pn0tc 0pnoH has a'tHed
heW doctrines ,uGrtrsire of former safe precedent
The last paragraph describes exactly he position
in which the Supreme Court of Missouri stands.
But the clam Of bred Scott to freedom was no.
case arising under the laws of Missouri. IL was,
aid the Supreme Court of Missouri admitted it to
be- ba,ed on the Constitution Of Illinois aud an act
Of Congress But Mr.. Justice Nelson Sc ms to BE-
of op Mon thai i. il Only Sac laws and acts Of
Congress for the benefit Of slayeaOding with the
tbf, rec rent Of which the Supreme Cour. of the
United States has anything to 90.
We hope that the Legislature will take some
action with regard to the Marine Court Of this city
before the close of the session. Taree bills
YapTing tuo nj uhich assmilase thia