New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-03-20
WAR AGAINST THE HIGHEST AU-
THORITY.

Firm and unfinchinp resistance In TYRANNY should
| command the respect and Admiration of the world
RabeIlion and blind obstnacy against. lust law de-
skrva universal execratjon. The bred Scott case
inst decided in the Supreme Corrt Of the United
States at Washington. seems destined to create almost
as much agitation and aispnte as the main question
mon which II was nred;catei han already done The
lopn;ou delivered NV Chief Justce Taney in this case
is nroduct;on of eminent ability and learning, and is
imnrepnabe in lopica, educton and sound reasoning
He first areues the question of the plaintiff right
ID s,, III conrt NJ tho limited States He draws the
distncf;oY betvee The rights Of citizenship which
State NAV confer and the rights of citizen of the
United States. No one can be citizen of the United
States excen Under the provisions of the Constitution
and II does not follow that because man is citizen
of one STATE he must be recognized as such by other
States in the Union ANY State may confer its priyi
leoes Of citizenship upon an alien and he would to all
infants and purposes become citizen of that State,
mi not citizen of the United States nor could he
sne in Tinted States Court nor enjoy on account of
sncb naturalization. the iumuuties Of citizenship in
other states For this reason and because the proy
sons Of the Constitution in relation to personal rights
To which citizen Of State is entitled do not apply
ID negroes it is evident that the plaintiff was not a
citizen either of Missouri or of the United States and
therefore was not entitled to sue in the courts Of thu
latter ss 5s''3
The act Of Congress upon which plaintiff mainly
relied is that containing the clause which prohibits
slavery north of n certain line and here tbe whole
question rests non the right of Congress- tn mass scb
law under the powers granted to it by the Constitu.
ton. The clause which gives Congress power to
make all needfu rules and regulations respecting Il al
territory or other property of the United States has
no bearing upon the present controversy The power
there given is confined to the territory then belong
ing to the United States, and cannot apply to terri.
tory since ACQUIRED from foreign governments. .F
The Constitution gives no power to ACQUIRE terri
tory nor to govern it as such consequently Congress
can derive from it no power which it NAV lawfully
exercise over territory that power must necessarily
rest on sound discretion and it becomes the duty of
the Government to administer the laws of the United
States for the protection of personal rights and proper
ty theren'' the territories being acquired for the
common benefit, and the Federal Government acting
only as the trustee of the people. a'. 5".."
The Constitution unites personal rights with the
rights Of property and this extends to the Terrific
ries as well as to the States Congress cannot inter
fere with the rights Of property and therefore can
not authorize the Territories to do 50. It cannot
confer upon them the power to violate the Constitu
tion 1t is claimed, however, that there is a differ
ence between slaves and other property The General
Government has no powers over tile persons and
property Of citizens exceptthose enumerated in the
Constitution and if the Consultation recognizes the
right Of the master to his slave and places no differ
ence between slave and other property. no tribunal
acting under the authority of the United States can
draw sucb distinction and DENY the nrovisons and
guarantees of its security The right Of nronertv in
-. ! =. =. ~
guaranteed to every state and no words can he found
in that instrument irving Congress. preater mower
over slaves than over any other descriptions of prop
erty. either in or out of the Territories. -.
These are the two main grounds upon which Chief
Justice Taney bases his decision that plaintiff not
be;n citizen in anv sense was mt entitled to bring