The Kanzas news., 1857-08-08

does not discuss the merits of the decision;
and in that respect, l shall follow his exam
ple, believing / could no more improve
on Mclean and Curtis, than he could on
Taney.
! He denounces all who question the cor
rectness of that decision, as offering violent
resistance to it. But who resists it? Who
has in spite of the decision declared Scott
free, and resisted the authority of his mas
ter over him ?
Judicial decisions have two uses-frst,
to absolutely determine the case decided,
and secondly to indicate to the public how
similar cases viii be decided when they
arise. For the latter use, they are called
"precedents'' and ssauthorities'
We believe as much as Judge Douglas,
perhaps more in obedience to and respect
for the judicial department of government.
We think its decisions on Constitutional
questions, when fully settled, should con-
troll, not only the particular cases decided,
but the general policy of the country, sub
ject to be disturbed only by amendments of
the Constitution as provided in that instru-
ment itself. More than this would be reyo-
luton. But we think the Dred Scott de-
cision erroneous. We know the court that
made it, has often oyerfuled its own decis-
ions, and We shall do what we can to have
lit overrule this. We offer no resistance
to it.
Judicial decisions are of greater or less
authority as precedents, according to cir
cumstances. That this should be so, ac-
cords both with common sense, and the Gus
tomary understanding of the legal profess
SION
If this important decision had been made
by the unanimous concurrence of the judges
and without any apparent partisan bias, and
in accordance with legal public expectation,
and with the steady practice of the depart
ments throughout our history, and had been
in no part based on assumed historical
facts which are not really true or, if
wanting in some of these, it had been be-
fore the court more than once, and had
there been affirmed and reafirmed through
course of years, it then might be, per-
haps- would be, factious, nay even revolu-
tionary, to not acquiesce IN it as a prece-
dent.
But when, as it is true, we find it want
ing in all these claims to the public conf
dence, it is not factious, it is not even dis
respectful, to IT at Ii as not yet having quite
established settled doctrine for the coun-
try. But Judge Douglas considers this
view awful. Hear him:
" The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the
Constitution and created by the authority of the
people to determine, expound and enforce the law.
| Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the
highest judicial tribunal, aims deadly blow to
our whole Republican system of government
I
rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anar
ehy and violence. / repeat, therefore, that If
sistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States, in matter ike the points de-
cIded in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their
jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall
be forced upon the country political issue, it
will become distinct and naked issue between
the friends and the enemies of the Constitution
the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of
the laws"
Why this same Supreme Court once de-
cided national bank to be constitutional !;
but Gen. Jackson, as President of the Uni
ted States, disregarded the decision, and
vetoed bill for re-charter, partly on con-
stitutional ground, declaring that each pub
lie functionary must support the Constitu-
ton, .'as lie understands IT. But hear the
Generals own words. Here they are, tax
en- from his veto message
''It is maintained by the advocates of the bank
that Its consttutionaty in all its features, ought
to be considered as settled by precedent, and by
the decision of the Supreme Court. To this con-
eiuslon cannot assent. Mere precedent Is dan
gerous source of authority, and should not be re-
garded IS deciding questions of constitutional
power, except where the acquiessenee of the peo-
pie and the States can be- considered as well set
tied. So far from this being the ease this sub
jeet, an argument against the bank might be based
on precedent One Congress in 1871, decided in
favor of q bank; another In 1911, decided against
it. One Congress in 1915 decided against a bank :;
another in 1916 decided in its favor. Prior to the
present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn
from that source were equal. If we resort to the
States the expressions of legislative, judicial and
executive opinions against the bank have been
probably to those in its favor four to There
Is nothing in precedent, therefore, which if its
thority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of
the act before me-
drop the quotations merely to remark,
that all there ever was, In the way of prece-
dent, up to the Dred Scott decision, on the
points therein decided, had been against
that decision. But hear Gen. Jackson fur
ther:
/" If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered
the whole ground of this act, it ought not TO con-
troll the coordinate authorities ofthis Government
The Congress, the executive and the court must
each for itself be guided by its opinion of the
Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an
oath to support the Constitution, swears that he
will support 1t be understands it, and not it
is understood BY Others"
Again and again have I heard Judge
Douglas deaounee that bank decision, and
applaud Gen. Jackson for disregaFding is,
1t would be interesting for him to look over
his recent speech and see how exactly his
fierce phillipics against us for resisting SUI
preme Court decisions, fall upon his. own
head. twill call TO his mind a long and
fierce political war in this country, upon an
issue which. in his own language, and, of
course, in his own changeless estimation,
was ga distinct and marked issue between.
the friends and the enemies of the Consti-
tuition, and IN which war he fought In the
n