New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-05-20

We have at length the decision of the Court aud
the opinions delivered in the bred Scott case as
furnished by the Judges themselves and published
by the official reporter. We have yet bad time to
examine only the opinion of the five shareholders as
given by Chief Justice fancy SO far from soften
ing away any of the more Objectionable passages
contained in the abstract Of that opinion heretofore
published the present report repeats those passages
word for word, or nearly So while it adds good
deal more in the same strain. Such dense ignor-
ance or such wlful misrepresentatiOn-or such
combination Of both as we are rather inclined to
think is the sctas the historical part Of this opn
ion exhibits, it would be impossible to parallel-at
least, not since the time that Scroggs sat upon the
Bench. The Chief Justice in his old age-though
it cant be old age that is the only cause since the
four other shareholders went with him-seems to
have totally forgotten the functions of Judge, and
to have relapsed into the character of an eager,
artful, sophistical, jesutcaI, lying advOcate-for
the suppression of the truth is lying to all intents
and purposes. Had it come in the shape Of an
argument from the counsel of some slave-catcher
or negro-trader with terribly bad case this argu-
ment for such it is might be entitled to the credit,
at least, Of ingenuity. Considered judicial
opinion emanating from a Court the Judges
of which might be expected to preserve
certain show at least of selfrespect in
spite Of their prejudces, and the danger
in which they undoubtedly stand-a thing
which ought to be duly taken into account-of
being lynched at home should they presume to run
counter to slave holding sentiment; considered in
this point of view, to every person who remembers
the reputation which the Supreme Court of the
United States once bad, this opinion must be as
Notifying it is derogatory to the character and
position of those from whom it comes. But it
seems that the Supreme Court of the United States
is to form exception to the inevitable destiny of
everything human. England boasts her Coke, her
Hale, her Holt, her Mansfed we our Jay, our
Marshall and our Story. But as BramptOn was
found in England to be made Chief Justice Of
when ship-mOney and other usurpatiOns were to
be sustained we too have Chief Justice fancy,
followed and sustained just as Brampton was,
against the protests of the only two men On
the bench, by majority whose names, like
those of their ship-money brethrea, may be saved
from notOriety by the personal insignifcance of
the owners, but whose decision WILL like that, en-
Joy wide and lasting historical infamy.
To show to our readers that we do no injustice to
the character of the historical portion of this Opn
ion, we proceed to advert to few items Of it
which did not appear in the abstract as originally
published, and which therefore are now first pre-
sented to us for comment. BY way of showing
that it was the intention of Massachusetts, to erect
perpetual and impossible barrier between the
"white and the negro race" AID as evidence that
the idea Of citizenship on the part Of the negroes
was utterly abhOrrent ''to the thoughts of the men
"who framed the Declaration Of Independence, and
established the State Constitutions and Govern
'ments," the Chief-Justics refers to q statute
passed in Massachusetts, in 1705, and in force, as
he says, wASh the Revolution began, by which mar
riagcs between whites and negroes and mulattoes
were prohibited, under a penalty of ESQ, to be
paid by the person who should celebrate such
marriage This statute, passed in 1905, is referred
to as showing the " fixed opinion upon which the
statesmen OF that day. lie, the times of the Reyo-
luton and the Federal Constitution, spoke and
acted" Now, it so happens that the Colony of
Massachusetts bad passed in early times, and still
bad On her statute book when the Revolution be-
gan, an act which made the celebration of the mass
apenai cfense, and even the coming of Catholic
priest within her limits capital crime. What
would DIR. Chief Justice fancy say to an argument,
nased On thtse premises, Of fixed and unaltera-
bic determination" on the mart of setts In