New-York daily tribune., 1857-04-18


States to pass on their way through this star a. ~
fuse this would be TO refuse 10 comply WIN 'ne to-
quirements of the Constitution His ui a,ncnd''"' az
the end of the st resolution was a. nnv 10 .nv
Provided however that this shall no, sPpy P 'y -
who fed from the service o. nbocd srrnt bsi
~ In through this State to the state 'h "hA ne
ED root would not consent to this amendment,
,.u.l Ia Ala not propose 10 raise any question IN
a..S 20 tho Fugitive Slave law. lie wished the
roeeeIn,on 10 distinctly involve the question Of State
Rghts-nohing more , 1,
IT. crdcr back person held to service does not
ure recognition of the existence of Slavery in the
State. .,,.v,,
4;onaitv Of the Fugitive Slave law 1t had not been
declared so by the Supreme Court though the present
Court doubtless would do so if called upon. He did
not believe that law constitutional because il did
not recognize allow trial by Jury require the
presentation Of witnesses.
Mr.. HANFORD hoped the amendment would pre-
vail. You may set the Constitution at defiance, pni
while the Legislature may disfranchise New-Iofh anu
Brooklyn, il cant control the General Government.
Mr. WOODS thought the Judges OF the ouPreln'e
Court had right to declare any law Is
whatever this Legislature might thihk VI IT. ..
Southerner comes here with slave, he mas flgn. "
hold him here His slaye is an invested night of
"propelty which the owner had righ, 70 noni i io
ALLUDED 10 the "opon treason preacDed ~ tc A9ss'
blt, Iuber few evenings since, ana ne t u.
Mr. b. OWEN would oppose any recognitiop q oy ,lls
1aot-.,,e of tbe constitutionalty Of the Fugitive
S1asa L., Nv ,assed not 10 secure the rendition
rf f,p;tves but to ell the Democratic party 70
rende, II. homage 10 Slavery. II was not the slave
.med n, merely; but every principle of liberty, right
and ;ustce; said TO bind the Democratic party, hand
and foot to the Slave Power. This object has been
accomplished and the Democratic party is now the
bound thra Of the vest institution The decision in
fbe Dred Scott went little further. 1t was made
not merely to test the subserveBcy of the Democratic
party but to establish Slavery in every State in the
Union.
MI GROVE said, as Slavery had not existed in this
State for quarter Of century, these resolutions were
altogether unnecessary.
Mr. JONES remarked that as the act of '93 had
been declared constitutional the present act which is
n mere transcript of that has also, practically, been
declared constitutional. The only point in doubt In
regard 10 the old law was, the persons to whom the
duty OF surrender was confined The present law con-
forms clearly 10 the Constitution in that particular.
Mr.. NAKEMAN-The present law created new
Office unknown to the Constitution.
Mr.. JONES-The law created no office whatever
while the most eminent Jurists STORY among them
recognized property in slave. He read from JUS
1ce StOy to sustain his point.
The amendment was lost M =,
MIR HARPENDING moved substitute for the
second resolution, follows:
That The certain Of The JUDGES Of the snprs5ms
sned and opinions pronounced in favor Of m G
not only & al to ts the people
Mr. SCOTT objected to the amendment, whiie ne
opposed the original resolution: II was not yet GER
fam what points had Deen ueclueu Wy ulo C""i' VA
cent in one paiticuar-the noncitizenshp OF negroes
That ma y not square with notions OF law but II
il has been so adjudicated it Is legally ana c0nsiitu-
tionaly right. The Supreme Court is the highest
earthly tfbuna-a tribunal from which there can De
mo annenl cxcept by the sword. Do the majority
here intend TO rebel against the General Government
and the Supreme Court The point decided Is nol
new State Courts have held the same dOctrne-tne
6ourts of Connecticut and Tennessee, and the State
Department-al have decided that negro cannot be
"A citizen If the decision is unconstitutional, then all
State laws excluding negroes are ior they 90 NOT eH
tend to all the privileges they ENJOY IN some States
All the points outside of the case, commented upon,
are not decisions and OF no more force than the
opinion of any private gentleman. These resolutions
like the opinions they condemn, are eHtra.ludical.
Mr. cox preferred the substitute. lie was not
,,;;ng 10 saY that he had no confidence in the de-
cisions of the Supreme Court He would have conn,
Ience in its decisions on many points But he couid
not approve the dica in the case in question: ana ne
would not. Thus far he could 60 but no iarther.
YIe had confidence in the wisdom and legal ability OF
the Supreme Court; but when they put iorth doc
Primes merely POLITICAL he weud concur or dissent as
he should believe Many Of the sentiments embraced
in the rcrcntly reached decision merely political;
but for that he could not say that he had lost
sl confidence in the Judges Of the Court; =.
Mr. VARNUM moved substitute for the substi-
fute, as follows:
e.oped That this Lessture cannot too stronsy condemn
the pTce IN courts o. Of S SS @ nn o%ds
Ton in the recent decision of the Supreme Court
Scott csa practice which tend to bring the Court into
sced ond excite needless alarm and excitement IN ho
country.
or;g;nal resolutions He dissented from the conclu
sions OF the Court but he would not solemnly resolve
that we as a State have lost all confidence In that
Court II was nothing short of open nulificatlon
Those who could go so far should not stop short OF
Cursng and quitting the Union, "a South Cafolna
once threatened to do. The author of these resolu-
lions had himself been Judge, and he knows al are
bound To- presume that decisions of Courts OF Justice
are entitled to respect But here he says, we are not
bound by judicial opinions, simply because IN one
case the, had decided wrong. This was nulllhcauon
and unthing practical was proposed, II should not
MI. SPENCER supposed the question was, how the
ecsion affected the people OF this State-wnether
Lterfered with our personal liberty Ii II dld' snal
we sit by and allow such doctrines TO be fastened
ppo us or shall we in proper terms, dissent from and
denoulce them This Legislature represents the SOW
eregnty of the State and We are bound to utter our
protest against the decision in question. as 1t affects
our rights and the rights of every citizen within the
borders of the State. ,
MI GEORGE preferred the first substitute to the
original resolution. 1t was more moderate digniheu
and becoming-better calculated 10 exhibit hrmness
and determination. We do not desire to utter de-
fance, but to declare the principle OF State rights
rights invaded by the dicta OF the Court. But we
cannot in our quiet moments, say we have lost all
confidence in this Court questions outside oil that
particularly involved in this decision.
Mr. FOOT regretted these dissents from The origi-
nal resolutions. The substitute he deemed a mix
and-water afiar-not at all up to the occasion lie
Nir F. had been Judge, but he never stepped
aside to utter political sentiment and decisions VIII
be looked for in vain, except in this case, where
Court had ranged itself on the side of sectional
party. Talk Of dicta That decision is more than
slicta and in his opinion his resolutions only gave
teropce TO what is In the hearts of the people Have
not the five Judges identified themselves with the
ProSlavcry party Did not they step aside TO avow
Cdious political doctrines And did they not choose
their time Jeffrey was cruel, but he did not BRING
his Court into the arena of party strife; he uttered
doctrine more infamous than that uttered by this
Court