Arkansas intelligencer., 1857-04-17
Who owns Dred Scott,

1t is curious piece of history, that the
real owner of the negro bred Scott, is bellev-
ed TO be the wife of 'freesoil" anti-slavery
member of Congress from Massachusetts,
while Mr.. Sanford Is resident of New \ ork.
Mrs. Chatfee, was the widow of DR.. En-
erSon, once the owner of bred Scott and his
family Mr.. Sanford who prosecutes the suit
is her brother, and the son In-law of an intiu-
cntal citizen OF Missouri. Before the com
nIcnccment Of tins suit, SAID DR.. Emerson sold
and conveyed the plaintiff (Dred Scott) said
Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie 10 the defendant
(Mr. SANFORD slaves, and the defendant
claimed to hold each ot them as slaves But
sve have been assured that these slaves long
since passed out ct she control OF Mrs Chat
fee"
3sr Chatfee is "out IN a card" and talks
great deal antI-siavery, but tire only points of
Interest IN tins card are these:
"ln the case OF bred Scott the defendant
(Mr. Sanfo:d) Sas and Is tire oirT person who
had or has any power IN the matter, and nei-
ther myself nor any member of my family
were consulted In relation to, or even knew
of the existence Of the suit TIL after II was
noticed for trlaa, when 1T occurred IN an acci-
dental way. And if, in the distribution Of the
estate, of which this decision at,iruTs these
human beings are part, it appears that or
mine consent 10 receive any part : the thirty
pieces of silver then, aud not till suen, let the
popular Judgment, as well as the public press
fix on me the mark of a traitor to my con.
science, well as the true rights of our COM
mon humanity"
1t certainly appears from these statements
that the owners of Dred Scott are now "Yan-
KEGS" or New Yorker, and it would seem
that the ''chattel" was Mrs. Chaffee's, which,
we see, however, she is not to be permitted
to accept.
1t would seem from this ownership, that
the Chatfees might, any time after the suit
was instituted, have discontinued it, and thus
put stop to the conclusions at which the
court has arrived. Mr.. Sanford, we are here
assured, was perfectly willing to give the ne
gro his freedom any time, when the Massa-
chusetss ownership permitted.
Important judicial Decision-The Char.
lesion Courier reports recent decision in the
U. s. Circuit Court, for that circuit in the
case of VIM. Simpson VS.. Barreda g. Bro, Of
special interest to owners of vessels and these
who chsrter them:
According to the conditions Of the charter
party, the vessel was engaged to 90 to the
Chineha Islands and take cargo of guano,
and bring Il 70 such port in the United States
as should be pointed out at st. Thomas-
After the vessel was loaded, the captain of
the vessel while in Cailao, in Peru, signed
bill of lading to take the guano 10 New Or
leans, or such other port as they might be
instructed, and received from the agent of the
Barredas in Calao, letter eonsigning the
said cargo to the agent of the house in New
Orleans. But when the vessel stopped at ST.
Thomas, the captain directed by Barreda's
agent there to carry the guano to Charleston
and not to New Orleans. The captain how
ever, insisted on taking theS vessel to New
Orleans. After reaching New Orleans they
were, BY the agents of Barreda, sent on to
Charleston. The suit was brought for the
additional freight from New Orleans to Char
lesion. A verdict WAS rendered for plaintiff
of si670, that being about one fourth the
amount claimed.
Ddndges.-At the late term of the Orange
county (Va.) court Dr. VIM. FL. NJ. Howard,
OF Bradford, was mulcted in the sum of 81
400 damages in malpractice, in not perfectly
setting manufactured leg.