Delaware weekly Republican. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1841-188?, 1857-05-14
For tho Delaware Republican.

. saH IlLE SLAREh4 NlUESllOSs
The late decision OF tho Supreme Court IN
the Drod Scott case, gives 10 the slavery ques-
tion new aspect; reversing as it does. n
many points, tho decisions heretofore rendered
by that Court, as also the decisions Of many oil
the State Courts, both in the North and the
South. Until recently the opinion has been
steadily ami uniformly maintained, both ny
Federal and State Courts, that slavery was u
local institution, sustained and supported only
by municipal regulations or State laws. That
the right Of the slave owner to hold his slave
Us property, was In all cases limited to the lur-
isdiction Of the State in which he lived. That
the legal right and title to such property IN
any State, is derived from "the laws tbervf."
The advocates and supporters Of slavery have
uniformly contended Tor the application oil
this principle, in establishing their claims to
the service or labor of fugitive slaves. But
what says Chief Justice fancy and his con-
iederates in tho case ofDred Scotti The no.
gro say they il not citizen OF the United
States, and consequently cannot sue or be
sued in tho Federal Courts Of the Union. Not
withstanding this same court ruled in 1913 In
the case of Williams vs.. Ash, Howard's reports,
vol. l, p. p. II, IA, that negro might not only
be party to II suit before the U. 5. Supreme
Court, bGt that Stare might so there and re-
coper his freedom.
In the late decision to which have referred,
it is assumed tho negro has no right, which
white men are bound to respect; and that tho
slave holder has the same right to carry his
his slave with him, into any territory belong
ing to the United States, that he has to take
with him his OK or his horse. Now what does
all this mean 1t admits of but one interpIe-
tation. Ii he has tie sumo right to take his
slave that he has to AXE his horse of course
that right is derived from the same source
and hence the cOnclusion,-that as the com
mon law which makes a horse property tho
world over, and defends and sustains the right
Of the citizens (frOm any State,) to such prop
erty in thu Territories belonging to the United
States; SO also it defends and sustains the
right OF the slave holder TO hold and enjoy his
slave property in the Territories. For no sane
man would wish to render himself so ridicu-
lOus in the estimation Of his fellow men, as to
attempt to maintain that man can carry with
him tho laws OF the State in which he has lived
when emigrating to Il territory.
Did the trainers of the constitution under
stand that instrument as coniering any such
rrghti II SO, the provision for the rendition
of tugtivUs was superlluous, or otherwise it
should have been made to apply as well to
strayed or stolen horses as torunaway negroes
Tho trainers oftle Constitution, as well asov-
cry other intelligent man Of that day, regarded
slavery as a State institution, entirely underline
control Of the people Of the respective States.
They generally regarded it as a social and po-
tical evil, to be got rid of as soon as circum-
stanceA could be made to conform to the de-
sired change. Madison, Il son Of the old Do
mnion, and who has been styled tho father Of
the Constitution, urged upon tho convention
the improperly ofallowing the word slave TO DO
inserted in the Constitution, as itmGht be con-
strled as admitting that there might be property
in man. Such too We're tho sentiments OF Jelitr
sou, oil Mason, of Franklin, and Patrick Henry.
Suchtoo were the sentiments the distinguish
ed men who composed the Congressman ratified
and confirmed the amendments to the ccnsti-
tuition. Among which is tho provision that
SO 40 person shall be deprived OF life, libery or
property without due process of law," reject
ing as they did the distinction sought to be
be made ofthe two States.
History furnishes conclusive evidence that
the trainers Of tho constitution and their CO.
temporarics never expected slavery TO extend
beyond the limits of the original States, hay
ing prohibited its Introduction into the Terri
tories then belonging to the United States.
But, says my goUd Democratic friend, what
are you going to do now, the Supreme Court
having decided the ordinance Of 81 and all
such prohibitions unconstitutional Wont
you says he submit to the decisions of the Su-
preme Court' Oh, yes submit, but not &C
qu.esce. III tell you my good democratic
irlend, what We'll do. In 1860 we'll elect
man president, somewhat like General Jack
son. Old Hickory you know vetoed a bill
passed by Congress, for the Incorporation of
an institution which the Supreme Court have
decided to be constitutional and he declared
| that hedidn't swear to support the constitution
| as the Supreme Court or some body else under
stood it, but as he understood it General
| jackson was good democrat, was he not
| A FARMER