Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1857-04-02

That usually conservative journal, the New
buryport Herald, has the following sensible com
nsnts in regard to the infamous bred Scott de-
cision 81 AZ E E
& - Nor Should we agree with the Trateller, tha
such decision is the law 1t is unjust anC
Repablican-iti is usurpation, and not law
Nor do we further agree with them, that from
decision of the Supreme Ceurt-unjust, anti Re
publiean-thsre Is no appeal God forbid there
should be laws, judges, or anything else, in THU
country, from which there should be no appeal
II il be wrong, we carry the case to the people
the creators Of courts and laws-and ask them tC
speak. In a country like ours, finality' is a
humbug The ordinance of 1877, and the com
promise Ct 1920, have been swept away by this
decision, aud hundred Supreme Court decisions
have gone with them; and the next bench OF
judges may this, the people reverse the
judges themselves"
OF the extra iu iical character of this decision,
We are confirmed by the following opinion Of
Judge Catron, himself one of the five comprising
the majority who alone agreed upon all the points
raised. If there were any doubt yet lingering in
the minds of any, of the extra judicial character
of that decision. the following should settle it
iyen as it was by one Of the five slaveholding
Justices, twelve years since, in another case
Said Justice Catron, in 1915;
'sBy the 18th section Of the Judiciary act this
court has power TO issue writs proper and neces-
sary for the exercise Of its jurisdiction; having
no jurisdiction in any given case, il eau issue
writ; that it has none to revise the proceedings
of a bankrupt court, is an unanimous opinion.
So far we adjadge; and in this | concur. For
further views why the prohibition cannot issue,
refer to the conclusion of the principal oplnion
But majority of my brethren see proper 10 go
further, and express their views at large on the
jurisdiction Of the bankrupt court. In this course
| cannot concur; perhaps il is the result of TIM
idity, growing out of long-established judicial
habits in courts of error elsewhere, never TO haz
ard an opinion where before the
court and when thatopinion might justly be as
signed as txtra,j judicial and mere dictum by
courts and lawyers; be partly disregarded while
/ was living, and almost certainly denounced as
undue assumption when was no more; meas
ure of disregard, awarded with an unsparng
hand. here and elsewhere, to the dicta Of State
judges under similar circumstances; and it is due
to the occasion and myself to say, that have no
doubt that the dicta Of this court will only be
treated with becoming respect before the court
itself. SO long some of the judges who concur
red in them are on the bench; and afterwards be
openly rejected no authority--as they are not. :"
Thus is the alctltps in the bred Scott case con-
demned by one Of ihe Ave whose vote was neces-
sary in order to give it the semblanee of receiving
the sanction Of majority of the Court. AS to
the only point on which there can be any show
: of claim that the Court on that occasion had any
business to decide, viz :the right to citizenship
Of persons Of certain color or race, Chancellor
Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law,
vol 2, page 25S, says, conHrmatory of the unan-
swerable argument Of Judge Curtis on this point !;
. Perhaps, after all, the question whether a
negro is or is not citizen Of the United States
De ms hal fai
distinction. 1t is certain that the Constitution
and statute law Of New York (Const. art.2 NJ.
i. Revised Statutes, vol. l, p. 1875, section p
speak Of men OF color as being citizens and capa.
bic of being freeholdeTs, and entitled to vote
And if, at common law, all human beings born
kings obedience, were natural-born subjects and
not aliens, do not perceive why this doctrine
does not apply to these United States in all cases
in which there is no express constitutional or
statute declaration to the contrary. Blacks,
whether born free or in bondage, THORN under the
jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States,
are natives, and not aliens. They are what the
common law terms natural born subjects. Sub
ject and citizen are, in degree, convertible
terms as applied to natives and though the term
citizen seems TO be appropriate to republican free
men, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants OF
all other countries, subjects, for we are equally
bound by allegiance and subsection to the gov
eminent and law of the land. The privilege Of
voting, and the legal capacity for Office, are not
essential to the character of citizen, for women
are citizens without either; and free people OF
calor may enjoy the one, and may acquire, and
hold, and devise, and transmit by hereditary de.
scent, real and personal estates The better opin.
ion should think was, that negro or other
slaves, born within and under the allegiance Of
the URited States. are natural born subjects, bnt
not citizens. Citizens, under our Constitutions
and laws, mean free inhabitants, born within the
United States, or naturalized under the laws OF
Congress. If a slave, born in the United States,
be manumitted. or otherwise lawfully discharged
from bondage, orif black man be born within
the United States, and born free, be born within
the United States, and born free, he becomes
thencefotward citizen. but under such disabili-
aities asithe laws Of the States respectively may
deem i expedient to prescribe to free persons Of
color"