Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1857-06-19
The OFFICIAL Report OF Judge fancy

The OFFICIAL Report OF Judge TancyTs
Opinion.
The appearance of this document calls
forth variety of comments from the Press
of both parties. The most unscrupulous of
the so-called Democratic papers, after hav-
ing for long time attempted to evade the
issue presented by Judge Taney, rs report
ed some months ago, by charging inaccura-
cy upon the report are at last forced TO toe
tho mark by the appearance of the official
copy, from which, of course, there is no cs-
cape. Whatever secret pangs of conscience
the may have, are of course concealed from
their readers; and to all outward appearance
they yield ready and obsequious obedience
to this new demand the slave-pow.
or. They arc all at once seized with an en-
thusiastic admiration of the monstrous doc.
trines, which torture and peryert the Con.
stitution, and constructiyely wrcst it from
its original intent and purpose. According
to those doctrines, negroes are recognized il
the Constitution only as property, in which
capacity they can not be heard in the Fed
eral Courts, for they are not citizens. Furth
CIR, the Territories of the United Statos arc
all open to the spread of slavery, and Con.
gress is restricted from the passage of laws
excluding the institution therefrom; anc
further still, even the free soil of the free
states is thrown open to the incursions O
the stakeholder with his slaves, who may
hold them thereon, in defiance of the fun
damental local law. The annexed extracts
from the official report with comments, VIC
copy from the State Journal. On page 1st
of the report, the following position is taken
81. A free negro of the African race,
whose ancestors were brought to this coun-
try and sold as slaves, is not a citizen with
in the meaning of the Constitution of the
United States.
"2. And not being citizens within tho
meaning of the Constitution, they are moi
entitled TO sue in that character in a Cour
of the United States, and the Circuit Court
has no jurisdiction in such n suit.
"3. The only two clauses in the Consti
tuition which points to this race, treat then
as persons whom it was morally lawtM tc
deal in as articles Of property, and to hole
as slaves.
"a. AS regards territory, Congress car
only legislato over it in relation to citizens
of the United States. As negroes are moi
citizens, of course it cannot legislato fol
them. "Coneress can exercise no power oi
citizen in the territory" "Congrcss las
no right to prohibit the citizens of any
State or States, from taking up their homo
there, while it permits citizens of othel
State to do so. Nor has it the right to Civ,
privileges to one class of citizens, which i
refuses to another Every citizen has
right to take with him into the Territor,
any article Of property achich the Consti
tuition of the United States recognizes a.
property" This, of course includes slave
property, because the Court holds that tn,
only recognition given to negroes in tho
Constitution, is that of property. So Con
grcss cannot prohibit slavery in the Terri
tories. But let us quote again:
"5. The Constitution of the United
States recognizes Slaves as property, ant
pledges the Federal Government to protect
it, and Congress cannot exercise any more
authority over property of that description
than it may consttutionally exercise ovel
property of any other kind"
Here we have it; that slave property i;
just the same as any other kind of property
and tho "Constitution pledges the Fedora
Government to protect IT." not in tho terri
tories only, but in the States; so that mar
may hold his slaves in Ohio They are hi,
property, and it cannot be touched or taker
from him any more than any other kind o
property, and "the Constitution pledges the
Federal Government to protect it." Doc
not this decision, therefore, open Ohio t.
the ingress of slavery as effectually as though
the ordinance of 1887 had never beer
passed.
j The Court then goes on to decide:
"6. That the act of Congress prohibit
ing citizen of the United States from tai
ing with him his slaves when he removes t
r the territory to reside, is an exercise of NJ
thority over private property, which is nc
warranted by the Constitution, and the re
moval of the plaintiff [Dred Scott) by hi
owner to that territory, gave him no title t
freedom" This means that slaves can b
held in the territories, and Congress has n
power to prevent it. We qote again:
81. The plaintiff (Dred Scott) acquires
no title to freedom by being taken by hi
owner to Rock Island in Illinois, and brough
back to Missouri because "the status O
condition Of person of African decent de
ponds on the laws of the State in a0hich h
resides" and by the laws Of Missouri {"
slave does not become entitled to his free
dom when his owner takes him to reside il
State where slavery is not permitted"
We ask particular attention to thes
words. They advance this monstrous proF
osition: That because a slave State enact
that slave taken to free State shall nc
thereby be free, he shall be held in thf
free State slave. Judge Taney says tn
, is the law of the land. Kentucky, VIC PR
r sumo, has a similar law TO Missouri. Obi
! says by her laws that slaves shall not b
brought here and held. If they are brougt
> here they shall be free. But Judge Tame
: decides the law of Ohio unconstitutiona
5 "as the status or condition Of person. Z
7 african descent shall depend upon the la,,
of the State an which he resided" This
is, shall depend upon the laws of Kentuck
or Missouri, or any other slave State frol
which the slave came, and not upon Il
laws of Ohio, or any other free State
: which he may be brought. We ask, then,
t view Of this decision, cannot Ohio be mad
= de factO a slave Stato9 What saw ot