Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1857-07-30

amy, as established by the patriarchs an
, renewed to The Saints OF latter days, ,throug
, Gods chosen rulers and prophets
/ How unkiDd, after the Mormons have
taken sue ter in the bosom of the self-style,
Democracy, and embraced its great princi
pie of popular sovereignty and self-govern-
ment,' and this self same Democracy, il
speaking of hem. should declare itself no,
satisfied with any halfway measures, and
say t is 'the duty of Congress TO apply the
knife, and cut out this loathsome, disgusting
ulcer But il the sef-styled Democracy by
their false professions, have misled the MOI
mons, it is same satisfaction to know that
they are now subscribing to the Republicqn
creed, by recognizing the power of Congress
over the Territories. According to that
creed there was never any difficulty in deal
ing with the Mormons. Republicans have
believed the authority of Congress over the
Mormons in Utah for the purpose ofrepres-
sing crime and licentiousness as complete
as is that Of the State OF Illinois over its in
habitants ,and think Congress just as culpa-
BILE in tolerating poligamy in Utah as the
Legislature of Illinois would be in toera-
ting it in this State. Mr. Morrill, OF Yer
mont, at the last session of Congress-, sug-
gested several modes Of dealing with the
MormOns:
q. We may dsapprove' OF all the laws Of
the Territory that We please, AMI thereby
annul them, and for such reasons as we NAV
appear proper.
.. We may eircumscribe the boundaries
Of the Territory, and give the inhabitants
mucE narrower limits.
'3. If the second proposition be adopted,
we may then abandon them, ,snd leave them
to fight out their own independence and SAL
Walton, spiritually and temporarily, in their
own good time.
4. We may cut up the Territory, and
annex It to the various adj joining Territories
%. We may organize Territorial Gov
ernment on the old plan of Council, con-
sistimg ef Governor and Judges-not Nor
mons, aud with military force sufficient to
maintain it
Either of the plans might be adopteG,a
would be Infinitely preferable to a total re-
peal Of the organic act and placing the
whole population outside Of any jurisdiction
where they could be constitutionally tiled
for criminal offenses; and now that the self
styled Democracy has repudiated as no lon
ger useful, the humbugS of Territorial SOW
ereignty and self-e government, it is to be
hoped that the next Congress will adopt
some constitutional and appropriate legisIa-
ton to suppress and punish crimes commit
ted in Utah.
The most dangerous and alarming conse-
qHence, because the most general in its
bearing .rhrnh hos resulted from, Tire repeal
Of the Missouri Compromise, remains yet to
noticed | allude to the decision of the Dred
Scott Case Before commenting upon the
case itself, wish TO call your attention 10
the character of the Court, as at present or
ganized. 1t is composed of nine Judges.
Five of these Judges are from the slave
holding States, containing less than one
third of the white population of the Union,
while the Free States, with more than two
thirds of its white population, have four Jud- |
ges. Judge M'Lean's circuit alone, embra-
cing the States Of Obi o, Indiana, Illinois,
and Michigan, contains at this time very
nearly as many white population as all the
circuits OF theliive Southern JUICES together:
and this is the Court thus constituted which
made the decision in the Dred Scott case;
and the most Objectionable parts OF that de-
cision are concurredI iD by the Southern
Judges only. Judges M'Lean and Curtis |
dissent into. Judge Nelson of New-York !
places his decision upon grounds not invo-
wing the power OF Congress over the Nerr- |
tories, land Judge Grier Of Pennsylvania con-
ours with Judge Nelson and differs substan-
tally from the sectional majority.
1t has become question how far this de- !
cision is binding upon the country aud |
ought to be followed as authority by Other |
Courts. Strictly speaking j, is decisive only !
of the case then before the Court, and it is |
entirely competent for the same Court or
another case precisely similar. This, how |
ever, would be regarded as overruling the |
principle settled by the first decision, and .
seldom, though it does sometimes happen; /
but all that is said in case not called for |
by the decision rendered in oJitsr dic-um ,of |
no authority whatever as precedent either |
in the Court rendering it, or in any other |
Court. Judge fancy who announced the de-
cision of the majority in the Dred Sect case.
states distinctly, in the conclusion of his |
opinion, what the point decided was. lie !
saws:
upon the whole, therefore, e is the Judy /
ment Of this Court that it appears by the |
record before US that the plaintiff in error is /
not citizen of Missouri, in the sense in !
which that word is ed in the Constitution; /
and that the Circuit. Court of the United !
States, for that reason, had no juris liction ,
in the case, and could give no judgment in
it.
Thus you see the only point decided by |
the majority wRs that the plaintiff was not
a citizen of Missouri, and for that reason
alone they dismiss the case for want OF iurs-
dictiOn. = II that is said by Judge Taney.
there fore and his sectional aSsociat ion about
the nconstitulionality of the Missouri Con-
promise the right to hold slaves in :he Ter
ritories. and the freedom or slavery al Dred
Scott was clearly extra judicial, and is en-
titled to no respect whatever as a decision
OF tDe Unlleu SIdteS IOuTl, OtCduSt IL WIS |
said in u case not involving those questions,
according to the decision made. Every per-
son knows that Court, after deciding that
it has no jurisdiction to rsEder judgment in
a case, has 10 business TO go on and pass
upon its merits. Judge M'Lean ,lluding to
this part OF the Courts opinion, says:
Nothing that has been said BY them which
I L al. 4 Q
of the Court against which they decided can
be considered as authority. shall not re-
gard it as SUCH And Judge Curtis says:
L do not hold any opinion OF this Court, or
any other Court, binding, when expressed
ON a question no: legitimately before it,
But the opinion expressed by the section
al majority of the Supreme Court, although
not of judicial authority are vastly important
as indicating the principles of the self
STYLED Democratic partylwhich now has con-