Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1857-1858, 1857-08-13

exhibited in marked degree. 1t is but
just to remember that Mr.. Quarles' COM
petitor, was also unfortunately prevent
ed" from canVasSing the district. Had
"this county" been thoroughly aroused, the
American majority would have been 800
larger than it was.
what did the bred Scott Case Decided
There has been great deal said CON
corning the bred Scott decision. In the
beginning it was assaulted because, as was
alleged, it was unjust and contrary to law
that it was the offspring of political preju-
dice, &c. This species of infamatory cant
had its day in the New York, Tribune, AL
bany Journal, and their echoes through the
North 1t failed to have its desired effect
upon the popular mind, or rather, the effect
was but temporary. The more serious
question has now arisen, what did the Court
decide in that case? Whenever an issue
is lawfully presented to that august tribu-
nal, and a direct decision is passed upon it,
we should be slow to believe that there is
any considerable portion Of the American
people, who would perSevere in a studied
opposition to such adjudication. And we
have always believed that no class of the
people would be more ready to acquiesce
in such decisions, nay, uphold and defend
them, than the Lawyers of the country.
While their profession makes them more
familiar with such matters, their every day
intercourse with the business of life, and
insight into the conflicting interests of men,
but impresses upon them the deep impor-
tance of unfolding an Independent and en-
| lightened judiciary, and of sustaining at all
hazards, the decisions and precedents of the
Courts. The principles involved in the
case of Scott VS.. Sanford, were of the high
est magnitude, and when the question is
graVely made among the jurisconsults, what
was decided by it? and an answer to this
question threatens to reduce the adjudiCa-
| ton to one of the mereSt insgnifcance, by
robbing it. of its character as a precedent,
as to those distracting questions, which
gave it Importance, the question indeed
becomes a serious one. Because, if it
shall be made appear that the decision, or
what purports to be a decision, is not such
as to make it precedent for the future,
on the great and absorbing question of the
cOnstitutionality of Congressional legiSla-
ton upon the subject Of excluding or adj
Il. no -
bred Scott case, has decided nothing of
any very great value to the country. This
question has, in fact, arisen, and although
it may not receive a great deal of atten-
tion from the newspapers, it is of infinitely
more consequence, than the supposed inca
pacity of Judges, arising from ignorance or
political prejudices. These latter have no
reasonable foundation, and were urged by
unprincpled men for the most unholy pur-
poses.
We have been led to these remarks by
seeing a reference to thorough review
of the bred Scott decision" in the Boston
Lao Reporter, wherein the question to
which we have alluded, is made and elab-
orately discussed This review ''is ascrib-
ed to HORACE GRAY, Jr., and JOHN Low
ELL, two well-known gentlemen of Boston"
The result of their Investigations is thus
briefly but clearly stated by the Baltimore
American:
''First-As to the question, "Csn a negro be a
citizen of the United States" II has been COM
monty supposed that the Court decided this question
in tho negative. That is a mistake. From the
form in which it presented, il is very doubtful
whether il before the Court for a decision
Four of the nine Judges thought that il was; these
were the Chief Justice, and Justices Wayne aud
Daniel, who answer the question in the negative,
aud Justice Curtis, who answers it in the afirma-
tive. OF the Judges, who give 10 opinion on tue
point, one Judge McLean) declares that if he an
cred the question at all il would be in the air-
native; Judge Catron, when Chief Justice OF the
Supreme Court OF Tennessee, gave an opinion di
rectly involving an affirmative answer to the ques
tion the three other Judges give no clue to their
opinions. On this question, then, the Court stands
thus; three 10 the Affirmative, three IN the negative
and three silent.
''Secondly-Was the Missouri Compromise con-
sttuiionaly Ii is perfectly well settled principle
OF the Supreme Court and one that has been often
laid down from It's bench, that part OF opin-
ion OF the Court Is 90 be regarded as OF authority
precedent which not necessary TO the drLegmi-
nation OF the question before II. Anything beyond
this is merely the expression OF the individual
opinion OF she Judge; and it has been well said
that ''if general dicta 10 be considered
tablishing the Law, nothing is yet settled or can
long be settled Bearing this in mind, let look
at the facts Of the case Scott was a slave ia Mis-
souri,; Was taken by his master 70 Illinois, aud
thence into Territory OF the United States where
slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compro-
| mise, and thence back % Missouri. The opinion
| OF the Court Is placed upon the ground that toe
ltNs Of Missouri 20 decide Whelber Scott Is OF
il not slave nov that be has returned thltber II
/ this be 50, what matters il whether the Compro-
/ mise valid or iaYaldY Ia other Words whrth-
scott was tree when Ia Illinois, ia she Terrific
~, or whether be continued 20 Dc q slave all the
| timey Aud If the Coau goes out OF gs way 20 give
opinion on this point, could palmer instance
/ be found OF an opinion potut nos neeessa-
/ ~ TO the determination OF the rights OF tie par
/ tiess
''fhe Court then has not decided that the Mis-
| souri, Compromise sas unconstitutional
| ''fhiFaly-Ihis case Is often spoken Of as de-
/ Gliding that master may take bis slave 10 q free
State, and there hold lim as q slave. This Is a
simple mistake, there Is no such poias decided.
| But
'tFourthly-fhe doctrine i here established thai
/ II slave DC taken BY his master % a free state,
aud does not there claim his liberty bat consents 70
return sith his master % q slave State be nav BE-
| held slave there, Il the highest CouFI Of that