Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-03-21

might declare him n slave on his return. The
Supreme Court of Missouri having decided him u
slave, the Federal Court was bound by that de-
cision.
Fur the following synopsis Of the opinions OF
Judges Catron and Mclean We are indebted to
the NATIONAL Era.
JUDGE CArRoN, examined the question, did bred
Scott, his wife and child, acquire their freedom
by suiuurn in the territory north OF go 3U, IN
virtue of the Missouri Compromise? lie argued
the negative, discussing in the course of his ar
gument the whole question OF the power Odt0n'
yress over Territory. lie held that the OrGinsnce
Of 1857, prohibiting Slavery, was within the pow,
er of the States enacting it-that, 10y the Federal
Constitutions, il become binding on the new Gov
eminent, like the other engageulements OF the OOh-
| ederatiun-tha the third section Of the fourth Ar
ticle of tho Constitution, granting power to Con
gress to make nil needlul rules and regulations
respecting territory, &c, hid not apply alone to
} the territory northwest If the OHIO, but invests
=. Congress with power to govern the Territories Oh
i the United States.
The Judge proceeded to say that the only ques'
ton then was, rs to the limit Of the power to gov
z ern Territories. The Ordinance restrained 1t IN
relation to the Northwest Territory, 80 that Con
| gress could not force Slavery therein. The deeds
of cessiun OF North Carolila and Georgia, in li9O
and 1902, providing against the prohibition OF SI
l very in the Territories ceded by them, restrained
+ Congress from attempting 10 force Slavery out OF
E them. The Treaty OF lSU2 with France, whereby
we acquired Louisiana Territory binding the Uni
ted States to protect tho liberty, property, aud re-
q llgion of the iuhabitauts-.s some OF their most val
l. uuble property being slaves-limited the power OF
= Congress, precluding it from the right to abolish
Slavery anywhere in said Territory. For this
reason, the act Of Congress prohibiting Slavery in
that part of the Territory lying north of 360 3O>
was in violation OF treaty obligation, and therefore
null and void. But, not combining himself to this
! view, he went on to argue that, by the Constitution
the Shareholder has the right to carry his slaves
I into any Territory Of the United States, and to be
protected therein. lie sums up rs follows:
My opinion is that the third article of the troa.
ty of 1903, ceding Louisiana to the United States
stands protected by the Constitution, and cannot
= he repealed by Congress
Aud secondly. that the act of 1920, known as
the Missouri Compromise, violates the most lead
ing feature Of the CONSTITUTIONS feature Oh
which the Union depends, and which secures II
the respective States aud their citizens an entire
= equality of rights, privileges. and lmmunities.
For these reasons, | hold the compromise act t
have been void and, consequently. that the plain
g tit. Scott, can claim no benefit under it.
e JUDGE MCLEAN, discussed the question under
o several heals.
/. The locality Of Slavery as held in the Su
preme Court, and in the Courts of the States.
Under thi. head, by n reference to the civil law
he showed that throughout Europe Slavery wa
u NV w tIt i'Ntl'bJ NhO' ~ Nto Co NC ~
law and that with nut an express compact, "n'
nation would not deliver up an absconding slave
to the citizen Of another country.
lie also showed that, by decision in the case o
Prigg Us the State of Pennsylvania, the Cnnr
m held that Slavery was local, and could exist Onl,
by virtue Of the local law. That it the Constitu
. ton had not required the rendition Of fugitive
from labor, every State might have manumitted ee
Of cry slave that entered a non-slaveholdipg Stat
,e with impunity, as there was no principle in tn
L. - -, l,.l or,,rA tka ,a,,,- &C Ia
slave.
2. The relation which tho Federal Government
bears to Slavery in tho States.
"a Under this head he SHOWED that Slavery was 10
on cal, and under the control Of state sovereignty
,d that the Federal Government had no action owe
:. il, except in regard to q surrender OF fAgitive
"9 from service ur labor. That slaves were spoke
NJ Of in the Constitution as persons, and not as prov
erty. That Congress could not regulate the slav
,is trade among the States, and that the continuanc
b. of the slave trade twenty years after the adoptio
of tho Constitution, was not II general measure
ge but in favor of such States as should think pro pc
he to encourage 1t.
lis And he referred to tho remark of Mr.. Madison
of who was DESTROYS that no word should be used
j.. the Constitution which indicated there could /
property in man.
-, 3. The power of Congress to establish Territc
v" rial Governments, and to prohibit the introductio
es Of Slavery therein.
10 Under this head he showed, by the proceeding
1t of the Convention which framed the Constitution
be that the necessity nf a power to establish temp
rary q ,vernment, as initiat0ry to the establish
mont of State Governments. and to dispose Of tn
IL public lands, was felt and acknuwledg ed that I'll
ce sa.e Of these lands was looked to for the paymeI
xo of the Revolutionary debt. And that ample pre-
-; vision was made to establish Territorial Govern
ments by the Sd section of the 4th article of tn
m Constitution, which gave Congress power to di
tn pose of, and make all needlul rules and reguli
zee tinns respecting, the territory or other p,ouert
nd belonging to tie United States. That fer sixt
"N years this power wns universally adm tilted ly d
Courts, Federal and State, and by al statesmen
he And he INDICATED and maintained the opinion
an the Supreme Court in the case Of the Atlantic Ii
surance Co. Us. Center, l Pe.ers, Sill.
en- 4. Under this head he discussed the effect
h. taking slaves into II free State or Territory, an
" 80 hoiGing them, where Slavery is prohibited.
lie assented to the doctrine clearly announce
ire in the case of Prigg Us. Pennsylvania. that SLAYER
Use could only exist in II State where it was establishe
h. by law and, consequently if a slave be take
where it is not authorized, the master could NJ
no cnerce the slave. And that where Slavery wi
he prohibited, in Illinois and north of Missouri, if
ity slave were taken there by his master, and RENAME
,r there in his service, he WAS free, under the decision
" of the Supreme Court, and by numerous decision
'e' hv the Supreme Courts Of the Southern State
ry. These were cited largely, and relied on, as full
pie sustaining the ground of freedom. especially Il
in decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri. TIL
for twenty-eight years the curse of decision "
pr uniformly in favor Of the slave, until bred Sec
Ifh- came before it.
'Ee b. Whether the return Of a slave, under the co..
yes troll OF his master, after being entitled to his FIRE
md dom, reduces him to his former condition.
40 Under this head he examined the decision
- Lord Stowell, in tho case of Grace, and numerol
w authorities of the slave States, all Of which, exec
to II few recent cases, hold that the return of III
in LII va din pnt aus his G,rr,ar - IN atton
IN. This was uniformly the course Of the decisions
he Supreme Court Of Missouri for twenty,eigl
wv years, until it was changed against bred Scot
ib- avowedlS by the majority Of the Court, to chez
pc the fell spirit Of Anti-Slavery" in the FRI
mr. States.
~ In England, n slave could not be coerced /
", W his must r. although there was no express prohil
tion against Slavery; but it is not auth ,rizc
his And he alleged. from the flcts agreed II, that &
md return of bred Scott was not voluntary, AS t