Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-06-09
THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.

The Detroit Free Press pointedy remarks:
"Many a preacher has Illuminated sermons agsln'
the bred Scott decision, and yet not one OF them mac
read the opinion Of the Supreme Court nor SneN Pre
cisely what ground the decision covered LIB puoi.
cation shows that does Nc. Sutecover the erouno the
preachers had supposed. IL eDunciates qute uiner
emf doctrine than that charged uponlt as we enowed
Yesterday. But what of this 7 Will the preachers
ever correct the error they have spread
Not they. Probably InOst of them never Will read
ths opnon and nine out OF ten will persist IN the mis-
representations they have indulged'
In this connection, We make room for the following
instructive revelation, which we hnd in late number
of the Providence Post:
ais IT THERE you ARE OLD TRUErEsNr 7-Soon
after the bred Scott trial brought to conclusion
il was stated by southern editor that Scott was the
property of the Hon. MIR. Chaee, Black Republican
member of Congress from Massachusetts ana that
Chaffee and not Sanford was the real defendant in
the case Some of Mr.. Chaffee's friends Immediately
denied this, but the gentleman himself was finally
forced into the ded and had to admit in substance.
that Scott had into his hands as the property OF
his wife. The public were given to understand, how.
ever that Mr. Chafae could not emancipate Scott, II
he wanted to- and that it not his tChaees fault
that the poor slave had for his liberty and sue
in vain Ii turns out at last however, that Scott mas
been emancipated; and that, to secure this result,
Mr.. Chatf.e, not being citizen of Missouri as the
law REQUIRES had to convey hun to Taylor BLOW. VINO
executed the deed of manumlsslon VI course, Chat'
fee must have been SCOTS owner, or ne coulo DOT
have ,conyeyed him TO Blow. The following teie-
graphic despatch, received yesterday tells the whole
story.
and two daughters was emancipated day by lay
Tor Blow ESQ. They had all been conveyed to him
by Mr. Chaffee, of Massachusetts, for that purpose.
The following, from the st. Louis Republican Of
the 9th May, is fitting seque! to the above:
"The owners of bred Scott have done that tor MN
which the Supreme Court OF the Uniteu otaIes nave
decided the law would not do-they have made him
free man, with liberty to 20 where ne Peases' VIII
Gut 40 much as saying, by your leave Ihls favor
w.s accorded TO bred yesterday 10 the circuit conrt,
where Mr.. Taylor Blow appeared, and entered on
recor liz, papers necessary to secure the freedom OF
bred Scott his wife Henrietta. aud his two daughters,
Eliza and Jane But it should be understood that,
e,cept for the purpose of this act, Mr. Blow was not
the owner of these slaves: if his property at ALL
was only to secure compliance with the law of
Missouri, which requires that person manumitting
a .lave shoyI,i be citizen OF State. 10 constitute
him An oyer the title must have passed from DR..
Chaee mis- wife, apd her child or children and there
fore thsy .od these slaves to him for nominal con-
alteration perhaps, but still they were Sold and oy
such means bred Scott and his vile and children
have been set free The ownership was in Dr. Chattee
and his family, pending the trial in our courts ana
thi, ia the point which we desire the public should
hear in mind whenever occasion is taken to sllude to
the subject Let bred go: he will suffer more than
any one else by the decree of emancipation; for old
and worn ont as he lie, and all his political noorety
gone, he will have hard time to make q living, II
he s forced to depend upon the charities OF black re-
publicans and abotioDists."