The Washington union., 1857-05-30

Territory, than exists between the despoc governments
OF EuropeF
These are the words Of learned and great Judge born
and educated In slave States
now to inquire under the sixth and last head
whether the decisions Of the supreme court of Missouri
on the question before us are binding this court "
While We respect the learning and high intelligence of
the State courts and consider their decisions with others
as authority, follow them only where they give con
structon TO the State statutes On this head consider
myself fortunate in being able TO turn TO the decision OF
this court given by Mr. Justice Grier in Pease Peck
case from the State of Michigan us Howard, $50 dec-
ded in December term, 1855 Speaking for the court
Judge Grer said
1--WE entertain the highest respect for that learned
court, the supreme court OF Michigan and In any ques-
uon affecting the construction of their own laws where
entertain any doubt would he glad to be relieved from
doubt and responsibility by reposing on their decision
There are, IL is true many dica be found in our de-
cons averring that the courts Of the United States
bound To follow the decisions of the State courts the
construction of their laws. But although this NAV
be correct yet rather strong expfession of general
rule 1t cannot be received the annuncation of maxim
OF universal application Accordingly, reports fur
nish many cases OF exceptions TO It, In all where
there is settled construction Of the laws of State by
its highest judcure established by admitted precedent
II is the practice of the courts of the United States
cciye and adopt it, without criticism further inquiry
When the decisions of the State court not consistent
we do not feel bound to follow the last if ii is contrary
TO our convictions and much is this the
where after long of consistent decisions, some
new light suddenly springs up excited public opin
ion has eiced doctrines subversye of former safe
precedent
These words it appears to me- have stronger applica-
ton to the case before than they had to the in
which they spoken the opinion OF this court and
regret that they do not TO be fresh in the recol
lection OF of my brethren In my own. For
twenty eight years the decisions of the supreme court o
Missouri consistent all the points made in this
But this consistent suddenly ter1nina
ted, whether by some light suddenly spVinging up
excited public opinion, both it is not necessary
to say In the of Scott Emerson, in 1882 they
were overturned and repudated.
This, then, is the very in which seven Of my
brethren declared they would not follow the last decision
On this authority may well repose. i can desire nc
other or better basis.
But there is another ground which deem conclusive
and which will restate.
The supreme court of Missouri refused to notice the
of Congress the constitution of Illinois. under which
Dred Scott, his wife and children claimed that they
entitled to freedom.
This being rejected BY the Missouri court there was
case before it, or least it with only side
and this is the which in the opinion of this
bound to follow. The Missouri court disregard.
the express provisions of act of Congress and the
stitution of sovereign State, both Of which laws foI
twentyeght years it had not only regarded but carried
into effect.
IT. State court may do this on question involving
the liberty of human being, what protection do the laws
afford SO far from this being Missouri question it
question, as it would SEEM within the twenty fifth
ton of the Judiciary act where right TO freedom being
set under the act of Congress- and the decision being
against such right, it may be brought for revision
before this court from the supreme court of Missouri
think the judgment of the court below should lie
versed