New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-03-10

x.uroof 'be Uao. .re OF III SaP-vrs ',~ q tee
~ O. 20 = .'es "a Cor = :. much pad t. AXE a'ae
IN The ca-e OF R,nkin ~. Lydia b.fore cited Juiys
NJ H. tpeakns for the Co1rt II Appeals Of ksutlcky,
sey-:
"ifiy The Pov- provision il Cote .1l
to ouf 10 The c,sc AID statutory provisions eygsg
pre cc'd~ a-An't hs riEht r tse ota All b-rse ..
,v. u ~ a. ~ hor-'y equally imPe7OUs b. d-o,rel
Gtl hwy SsuG n WAGE PPrs "a .isss Of ias II, -
q O., 80 49, ug D. ,'.f - ~n'tea j. = na'; ,.
AZ BE luther ssif.
Fre pc 90 c4c H. g. 10 ss,sssre j; ia believed. quasi
r zen. es., deGrzeus Arm toe safe.
0E iaem tie P.e. o. Office al 'ua ~ otaer csl
ucus rsbi. a-- secured 70 then steist .a,a s
vieut seculed 70 ae o. Zoe ortia ace I-st,a fr
he scveruDeii OF lndn ese mats A. v-'tta tni; ~
tIy oiaer portion Of the c'ei ss'e ca Il BE- l7I zoe
fts seir - &c 5r-a'-i savrr-le1t
tv,eu AID state % SA,e 49, Territory Ian eN.
the ae P1e s''er-Aaecis o. Ecrop~."
Tree are the words OF barred and great ia jge.
bo,r sud educstfd ir Save state.
In,w core 10 inquire. under the 6fh Al lls heal:
"Wbetft f. the decis OF tie Sup'eme Coq-t of Ms
souI % the question before u, AIe binding II
Court
While we rescect The learning AID high in'elf,an,s
e Tie etc Courts and .ider their decisions. with
o'rf-s a. sl'tOiiy. we ( dow them on.y whsre thew
give construction 10 the Sts'e s'sues o. tel. h@ad
ccrfider myself r-uus,e IL b5i,g a. 20 turn 20 tle
dec Ion q this Court given by NJ. justice G-sr 10
Pesse vs p x, case ron the Sta.e Of Michigan IS
Uow-rd 5Sq decided in December term. 1870.
Spesl ing Tor 'hf C. mt Judse Gder said.
W. the l-ifnt l3ff ttlN
supeue Coo.' ~ @ca',ar snd ~ iry q1-so' sf-ens ~
ro Of iheT AVS Wn@re AL aoY col9;
would he gai 20 b. relieved from doubt md re'Pono oy
rep-ii thor decision Ihrre sr- II - tue mtoy d,a 70
n. IN dec ins hst the Courts the n"d
STATE. bouzd follow the ~ the sue Courts o.
~ s,-uctiou OF heir own laws But although b.
yet srather stioIs expire 81 m % genera rr q
pc.ou Accordingly. reports furnish many cases OF sN-
c-pist H. To a. cases where there il settled cons uetn
0i.e State. By 10 highest JucstuTe established BY
adm piece lent l. i tie practice OF he Courts % .a ltd
t. receive ard adopt II without criticism or hef pa
go ,e boUn4 TO follow Ae 1Asi II u " coniTAry 20
olr oouycous-sal muc1 more IS hs the case where
denly ,pils. up TED pu'Ac opinion has e t-i n"
tocflilts suby,rsiyc OF toruer SALE prec"' elt.
these Eords L appears 20 me, have Stronger eppN-
cation 10 the case before rs, than trey bad 20 ne
c,ue In which bey spoken A. the uion OF thu
Cou AID regret that they do not seen - be az iresh
in the r. cos elton of zone ct my brethren "a IN my
oun For TWEEN weight years the decisions OF the 81
rreme Cont of Missouri, consistent on al the
nciuts made in this CSse But this consistent course
was suddenly terminated whether ny some new light
suddenly springng up or al excited public opinion or
both il is not necessary to say In the case OF S'l''
W. Emerson In lo"4 they were oVsr'"r""d and rePu-
dia'ed.
This, then, is the very case in which seven Of ny
brethren declared they would Lot follow the sst de-
cisiop. Ca this authority may well rcpose can
Genre 10 @ her or better basis
Bot thee s another ground whioh dee conclusive,
g. d which Will rsst8'c.
The Supreme Court OF Missouri refused 10 notice tue
oct # Congress the Constitution OF lhnos, under
which DIec Scott his wife and children, claimed that
they are entitled to frf elom.
Ibis beng riec'ed by the Missouri Court there
no case h.f ?. II or least it with only
side And This is The which, in the Opinion Of this
Court We a.e bound tc follow. The Missouri Court
Cislts ad u provision Of 81 ac Of Congress-
.pd the Constitution OF sovereign safe, both OF
shh la~a for twent' eight years 1t had not ony re-
garTed bnt carried into effect.
If a State Cour mag DO THU. on question involving
TIE liberty of hunsn bclng. wha, pro cotton do the
a hafy mi .lro
tion it IS question within the 18th sect)n Of the
Judiciary act, where righ to Freedom beinS get up
under the act ct ngres5 ard tie decision beng
sgsirs such right II ~ be biough. for revision &C.
fore thi, Cont from he Supreme Court Of Missouri.
Itiuk the judgment of the Court below sh1uld be
reversed.