Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1857-05-01
rlIntthman & Atatt gournaI.
MONTPELIER, NAY 1, 1851
4 pRn.s1-ANERY PROP


sundry Of the slavo-democratic newspapers
,among them Vermont papers arc endeayor-
ing to prop the decision Of the supreme Court
in the bred Scott case, by what purports to
I've decision by Lord Chief Justice orowE1I
in England. in 1885, which was esdorc8 ly
The tate JuDor STORY. Of Massachusetts, But
itisa bad prop and in the breaking will
piorco the body beneath which it is placed.
Let as see.
We quote now from the Bradford W.
Telegraph. but from an article which first APP
peared we think in the Boston Post
IAN ANTIGUA slave was carried 10y his master TO Eng
land fr Temporary rcsidcncc and was subsequently, TAKE
en- back 20 Antigua. He brought suit for bis freedom
and the Inferior Cour, decided against his right 90 free
DOM In the Appellate Court, lord stowel in behalf OF
She Court. affirmed the Judgment below
Lord SrowrLL communicated his decision
10 Judge STORY. who. ON the 22d Of Septem-
Der. 1888. acknowledged the receipt Of Lord
SIS decision, and expressed his concurrence
in it, Now be it observed, that the ground
of Lord Srowr11s decision is not given,
neither is the ,rhole of Judge sroRy's reply.
Fortunately. however. enough Of the latter
appears to show Judge SroRy's ground
thus:
.tnmynat,c state iessaehusci,0 the state of slave.
g., IS mot recognized a. lesd nud yet. ~ alrc should
siosii certainly think Maf to oea' iao 'ro0a re0tiqeh
giu'sd" '
The ground is clear enough. The slave
rohmiadaiy returned 10 aarery Though he
might have claimed and received his freedom
in England, he did not do it, but returned az
sine to Antigua, where his master could
hold him as @ slave against his will. The
whole case turns ON the ,olpt1ry going back
to s'agery and is no authority at all for inyol-
untary slavery, bat quite the reverse. But it
is said by the Democratic ncwspapers--by the
Post, and the Telegraph follows the Post
las tolegraphs usually do, r.
'rhis is precisely ihe Joetine upon which The bred
Scott deatou is based and coming fom So eminent o.
uri.t and one who known 90 be strongly opposed to-
slavery ought TO remove M doubt as to the justice Of
that jc.aon.'
vhopper i may be true that some of
the judges decided ON the ground above stat
cd and fortunate would it have been for the
Court, had all Of the majority taken that
course, for in that case little fault compare
lively would have been found but, according
70 our recollection, Chief Justice fancy did
not oven alludc to this ground. nor did he de-
eide the case at all upon its merits. No!
Drcd Scott could not have his case considered
by the Court If free man, by act of Com
gress or any other title, the Court would not
entertain his case. II citizen Of any
State. the Court would not consider him, the
Constitution to the contrary Notwithstanding.
12n was the decision of the Court Nay,
moro travelling utterly beyond the case, the
Chief Justice undertook to strip the Federal
Government of It's power to control slavery
in the Territories, and the State Governments
OF tie power to control it in the States, against
the doctrines and the practice of both gov
ernments from the beginning Newspaper
editors. calling themselves "democratic!' and
conservative e. sustain such opinions, and
attempt to back them up ID the manner VIC
have indicatod--by fraud There are no
slaves more soryile than these democratic
demagogyps OF the northern press.