The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-04-14

maritime law ID were we'll if the common lawyers had
staded little extensively the principles oil public and
civil law, and had looked beyond their own municipal u-
| risprudence.
obedient servant JOSEPH STORY.
To Right Hon WILLIAM Lord STowELL
1t will be seen that Lord Stowe in these letters ad-
ms that regard the slave trade he is rather stern
aboltionistD and that he is "friend to abolition gene
rally But notwithstanding his abolition procliviies
after much labor, and being fully impressed with the
importance OF the there being in fact I'VE causes de-
pending upon the determination Of one, he decides that
negro slave leaving England and returning TO land Of
slavery thereby restablished his former servle condition
Upon thu slavery question Justice Story did not differ
very widely from his lordship He was certainly very
strong antisavery f out-andout abolitionis
if he really entertained the sentiments attributed TO him
by his son-Life and Letters of Story P. 35s.
But Justice Story approved of Lord stowells udgmen,
in the slave Grace in language strong and pointed
could have been employed by him. He says to Lord 81
81 have read with great attention yonr Judgment &c
Upon the fullest consideration which have been able to
give the subject entirely in your views" And
declares If he had had similar 10 decide he would
have decided in the way and that he regarded the
| decision as impregnable.
Nor is this all He puts a case If slave should
into Massachusetts, and afterwards return to his own home
he would certainly think the local law would reatach and
that his servile character would be Refrigerated
But Justice Story not only endorses this case as fully as
If he had decided himself but he says he knows that 1t
had been extensively read in America and that he
opinion but that of appreciation OF 1t expressed
| among the profession of the law.
II must be admitted that the facts in the OF Grace
from slave countries into free countries and then returned
into States OF slavery Upon these facts Lord Sowe who
admits himself to be an aboitonst and Justice story
another antisavery man. and both great in any age
fully committed, that the condition OF slavery reat
tached and his Justice Story says truly with the APP
probation OF the profession of the law in America
Ii the views OF the most eminent jurts OF England and
America and the solemn adudcaops of centuries are
titled to any weghtf our government is one OF law n-
stead OF unbrdled fanatcism and uncontrolled passion
IL the Supreme Court sworn support the constitution
the United States and faithfully and impair ay discharge
and perform all the duties incumbent upon them as such
judges according to the best of their understanding agreed
by TO the Tie United States were bound
to follow the ablished laws instead of trampng them
under foot then their decision could not have been other
wise 1t is not the province ola judge to determine the
rights Of parties gan according TO his personal whims
passions, preudices likes, dislkes He is as much
OF the law the private citizen before him His
office is to expound and enforce the aws-to apply its
rules to the before him. regardless OF personal antpa
thes sympa,hies lie is not the awmaker nor should
he be breaker No sound and upright Judge will
upurn the foundations of society and unsee the estab
shed rules of personal public right to crafty the local
temporal passions raging around him. Ills duty often
shield of the Constitution aud law between the nluriaed
multitude who shout for the crucfxon and the threatened
victim and If he has not the manly virtue to act he
like Pontius Plate is unworthy of his solemn trust How
the rights of and property dependent upon
the settled maxims of Jurisprudence, the disturbance OF
which would resolve society into chaos IL COURT swayed
by passion should those sacred landmarks in
der to crafty its morbid sensbiliies in how
would our country to be land OF liberty for there
be iberty in the harness of the law All else
is unrestricted despotism either Of The one or
lutism olgarchy or anarchy.
la the case Of Dre3 Scott, has been shown the
trolling propositions not They have been de-
cded, both in this country and England, before the po
cal agitation OF abolition Dsgge and Gibson and Story
conceded in opinion with Talbot Yoke and Stowel and
all with the present views of our supreme Court The
same law obtains that existed before The present po
cal strife arose and the judges of the Supreme Court
bound to follow its msndate not the shifting outcties OF
parsans or demagogues
II is no part Of my design to review the opinions of
either Justices Mclean Curtis yet il may not be aniss
10 direct attention the wide difference of views expressed
by them. The only political partisan aspirant the
bench Of the Supreme Conr Justice Mclean. Less than
ten years ago, when the "Wilmot-proyiso question
frat agaied he vountet red through the National Intel
;genoer elaborate constitutional argument against
the opinions uttered by him last spring when seeking
the black-repubcan nomination Ills partisan opinions
last spring, expressed wi view to the desired nomina
ton for the presidency Justice Curtis deliberately cobats
and overthrows Those dissenting judges cannot agree
with each other on many Of the most important points dis
cus5ed Before the court Of Massachusetts in the
AYES case Justice Curtis conerded most earnestly and
seriously for the same doctrines which he now repudates
and marshaed formidable array of precesens to support
| the views then advanced by him Certainly, he then
thought the cited authorities sufficient and applicable.
The oucry Of aboliiionists at this time Is wholly unjust
and unonnded They euraged because they could not
sweep away the buwarks OF the law and their de-
tenders that the tempest OF party passion aroused by them
not permitted to rage destrucvey through the halls
of justice well in the mob-fed streets of Boston and
Syracuse and Christiana Fanscism Knows no law rea
son. principle 1t misrepreseDts the decision OF the
Supreme Court and seeks TO ame northern preudccs by
studied fsehoods The decision does state does
any sgasibe deduction from it the statement that
slave can be taken into non-savehoding community
and there held in slavery long the master pleases
No such proposition beto:e the court entertained
by it. The whole force of its opinion, far as it can
have any bearing upon such question, is, that the
laws of each State must be limited in their effect and
operation to the State itself that Missouri cannot
make laws TO govern Massachusetts, Massachusetts
to control Missouri The laws of each ntraterritoal
Whilst the slave in Missouri must remain slave unless
manumted by his MASTER his owner il he chooses TO take
land ho faint lpnn hn vp1.
unfairly remains in New England, to rely other
safeguard than the constitution of the United Sates and
the local laws there When the master and slave return
to Missouri they do not import into this State the local
laws of New England override the constitution and laws
Of this State Indeed it might have been enough for the
decision of the court simply TO have followed its uniform
rule Of actonin which Justices Mclean and Curtis have
of the supreme court of each State upon its local
laws is conclusive upon the Supreme Court OF the United
States and that the supreme court Of Missouri had
soemnly decided bred Scott to be slave the question
not open TO controversy The wisdom Of that rule is
obvious Were it otherwise, the most monsrous conse-
quences would follow the federal Judiciary would
ride the State tribunals and its law would rule
would be protection to citizen of Massachusetts, within
his State and under his local laws II the federal
judiciary could arbitrarily override his State courts
upon all local we'll federal questions Yet the decis
ions of Justices Mclean and Curtis open the door to such
:. monstrous results.
. Justice Curtis falls into yet grave
corning the history of the called Missouri Compromise
and restriction. The discussion in Congress resulted in
two compromises Of which presented by Mr. Clay
The latter left the question of negro citizenship to the judi
cal tribunals where 1t appropriately belonged and by
which 1t has been decided North and South both in State