The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-12-03
THE NORTHERN PRESS.
From the Indianapolis Daily Journal.
A "DRED SCOTT CASE" IN INDIANA.

1t is singular and Interesting fact, that the
same point decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States, in the celebrated bred Scott
case, IS moao pending before the Supreme Court
Of Indiana.
1t seems that some months ago. DIR. William
A. Bowles, Of Orange country, brought into this
State seven slaves, to be kept here temporarily,
and then taken back to Kentucky. After keep,
ing them here for some time, he did take them
back.
In the mean time, proceedings were institu-
ted IN the Orange Common Pleas Court against
Bowles, charging him with bringing negroes
into this State, contrary to our Constitution
and laws. Bowles defended, on tie ground that
the negroes Dere slaoes, and that he had right,
under the Dred Scott decision, to bring them
into Indiana. This defence was overruled by
the Court Of Common Pleas and he was fined
forty dollars. From this judgment, he appeals
to the Supreme Court of Indiana.
The case seems to involve this question for
the consideration of the Court, namely: Shall
the prohibition to our Constitution against the
bringing of negroes into Indiana prevail, or
shall it become a nullity, by the overpowering
authority of the United States Supreme Court
1t should be recollected that cur Constitution,
so far as this question is concerned, makes no
difference between slaves and free negroes. 1t
provides that "No negro or mulatto shall come
into, or settle in, this State" And both the
Constitution and statute make it a penal offence
to any one to aid any negro or mulatto in the
infringement of this constitutional provision
Nor can any one doubt that the provision
applies to all negroes and mulattoes whether
bond or free. Our Supreme Court has already,
IN the case OF Barkshire as. the State, Z Ind. R.,
309, held that the provision above cited must
be enforced as to free negro and that, too,
under circumstances the most revolving. The
negro, Barkshire, had brought negro into the
State, and he was held liable to punishment
under this prohibition, for so doing, though he
intermarried with her as soon as he had brought
her here. He was in fact held liable to the pen
atty of the law for encouraging his own wife to
remain with him here-the court pronouncing,
however, that the marriage itself was void.
The effect Of the decision 1as that negro lau
July residing here could not bring his oscn
wife into the State.
Now, it remains to be seen whether, since no
man may bring free negro into the State, and
since not even free negro lawfully resident
here may bring into the State his own wife or
child, STAKEHOLDER can bring his slave here.
If our Supreme Court decide that he may, it
will virtually nullify the constitutional provision
above referred to, at least limit its operation
to free negroes-thereby giving the preference
to slaves and Slavery over free negroes and
freedom-giving to the STAKEHOLDER privilege
denied to every non-slaveholding man in In
diana.
But if, on the other hand, our Supreme
Judges hold that the judgment against DR..
Bowles is right, they must do it in the very
teeth of the decision in the bred Scott case
for assuredly, if that decision is right, Bowles
had right to bring his slaves into Indiana
So it appears that our Supreme Judges are
in this dilemma ), they must either hold our
own State Constitution on the subject nullity,
and override it, or they must override the Su-
preme Court of the United States Which will
they do? Can they take middle ground, and
say that the Constitution operates on free me-
groes only, and not on slaves ? Should they
take this middle ground, they will directly play
into the hands of the stakeholder, and give to
him, and to him only, of all the men in this
free country, the inestimable right of taking
negroes wherever he pleases. This our Su-
preme Judges will hardly do. We sympathize
with their Honors, and hope that they may have
a safe deliverance."