Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-11-10
"THE SOUTH" VERSUS THE "DRED SCOTT
DECISION"


Chinese warfare and Chinese warriors have become
proverbially ludcrous. The Celestial Ajax Is SAID
to advance TO battle covered with shield, on which
gorgons and hydras, griffons and dragons are de-
picted with sou.freezing exsggeraton-d -dismai gongs
and harsh rattles and loudtongued boasts and me-
naces all uniting in dabolcal din intended to strike
terror into the hearts of the enemy But when res
olute enemy proves insensible to all these reasonable
inducements to fear, one usty blow generally sufices
to sbster the paseboard helmet and dsconcert all the
movements of John Chinamsn. Immediately discom
nted, he lodges and aqueals, and after some undec
ded attempts at Defence bitches up his pettcoat
presents bis pigta to the foe' kicks on both slippers
and makes tracks incontinently.
Without meaning to detract at all from the repua-
ton which "Ths South" has acquised for Pluck," We
must say that the course Of political dispuaton ad'
hered 10 by that journal resembles in some particulars
the achievements Of Ching Chang or Ho'fiTo. In all
tho clsp.trap of ad captandum appeals "The South"
is next to overwhelming.
Spicy captions over buncombe paragraphs are
piled up columns high, extracts from other Journals
are collated combined quoted and referred to- denun
citation and invective are coupled with boasts and
rhreats, until Chinese ingenuity can add nothing to
the terrifying demonstration. But, unfortunately Tor
"The South" political disputes are apt TO eventua'e
in legal and constitutional discussion. In this case
the journal referred to seems to understand Its
business about as we'll as Chinese soldier does the
manual exercise. Law-especially constitutional law
CONSTITUTES a department of science without the
range of study pursued by our cotemPorary. "heb
he is informed for instance, that he has pronounced
the Missouri Compromise constitutional measure
be will doubtless be surprised. Yet the fact that he
has pronounced such decision, is indsPutaole' we
quote the language of "The South:" "1he Missouri
restriction acas Of course repeal OF the Lous'ana
iap." Again. "If the Louisiana law which existed
bsfore 1890, was not revived by the Nebraska BILL
Il but left US where We stood before the bill was
psssed. for tAen the Louisiana lap remained repealed
by force of the Missouri restriction" Now it is plain
10 every mind at all informed on constitutional law
that no unconstitutional enactment can operate
10 repeal pree1isting law. Yet 1.-THE South" in
forms us that the Louisiana law was repealed and
did remain repealed, by operation of The Missouri
Compromise-thus asserting the constitutionaty of
hslatter enactment And while asserting this, The
south" admits that the contrary doctrine is asserted
hv tho decison in the "Dred Scott Case" Weagain
onote its own language: "But if, as the Court has
.ince decided in the Drsd Scott Case, the Missouri
,a.tricton was null and void ab initio then the Lou
i.;.na law still remains in force-not because Of the
Nebraska bill-but plainly because the law repaapg
it was void"
In short the position which "The South" has taken
Two trust, unintentonay, in this: that the Missouri
Compromise did repeal the Louisiana law; hence
the Missouri Compromise was constitutional act,
and that the Supreme Court has committed an error
in deciding otherwise. This is the position assumed
by Mr.. Bolts, and now asserted by the Black Repub.
licsn party. But we must not leave room for mis-
construction of our motive in thus exposing the
of .The South" We do not believe that "The
South" really sympathses either with Mr.. Bolts
or With the abolition party. We are satis6ed 10 call