The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-06-24
WHAT THE supnEME COURT AcrEp UPON

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT ACTED UPON
From the republican Journals, and the proceedings
of legislatures and conventions under the manage
ment of that party, it would be difficult to form
correct idea concerning the subject upon which the
Supreme Court acted in SCOTS case. The impres-
sion generally derived from examining The sodrces
referred to would he that the Judges adjudi-
Gated upon tho wisdom, policy, and justice of
slavery, and determined that it was demanded
and sustained by each Few could consult the
leading organs of the republican party, if full
credit should be given TO their assertions, with
out supposing that the judges were governed by
their individual feelings, and these formed the sub
stance of their respective opinions. Those who read
the opinions well those who know their authors,
will need no evidence to satisfy them that nothing
could be further from the truth Notwithstanding
all that has been said in republican papers and by
orators of that party, the majority Of the Supreme
Court are not shareholders
-Four of the justices reside in free States, where
no one owns slaves. The Chief Justice is not
q stakeholder, nor has he been for upwards of
thirty years. He never bought sold slave. OF
those that the British spared his father, when they
pohuteu ING SOIL vi mayiaiitt} sune csue W hu ny
inheritance. After educating those who were young
snoash to be taught, and qualifying them TO take
care Of themselves, no sol,..sii oa oil then
freedom. Two who were so old as to be unable to
their living lie cheerfully supported during their
lives He has not since owned slave. This is a
full and complete answer to the statements often re-
terated in the republican papers, that majority Of
the court were Shareholders and MS such had been
influenced in making their decision.
The court acted not upon their feelings and sym
pathies, but upon the questions of law involved in
the record. They were called upon to declare the
questions of law raised and argued by counsel upon
both sides. No sensible man can deny that this was
their duty. Their individual wishes and sym
pathies had nothing do with the questions before
the court. To say that their personal feelings
trolled their decision would be to accuse them of
high crime demanding their impeachment. But their
opinions show that the points discussed by ali the
judges were purely questions of law. Those who
contend that the court actuated by feeling use
two-edged sword, which cuts both ways. They
convict the dissenting judges well the majority
of the crime of acting from improper motives in de-
vering their Judgments instead Of declaring the law
Of the land. The dissenting members of the court
considered discussed and gave their opinions upon
every question mooted, and they profess to declare
the law upon such questions. The majority do the
same thing If the former acted Justly and gave
their honest views of the law it cannot be true that
the latter were actuated by feeling and wishes in
considering and deciding the same questions The
sworn duty of the judges is not to decide upon their
wishes and feelings, bnt to declare the law as they
understand to exist, regardless of all other consid
erations. The majority as well as the minority of
the court have left upon record conclusive evil
dence that nothing but legal questions before
the court, and that nothing else acted upon by
the judges in forming and delivering their opinions.
They considered and expressed their views upon
these questions precisely in all other There
is equally as much reason for alleging and believing
that the minority acted from feeling, prejudice or
bad motives, as that the majority did so. The re-
corded proceedings concusivey repel the idea that
the majority were governed by any other motives
than to expound the law as it exists The clamor
which has been raised emanaes from those who have
not read their opinions 1t is an extraordinary
fact that the opinions proving that they related solely
to the consideration of existing law have been wholly
withheld from the columns of the republican press
and only studied perversions of them communicated
to their readers. Let the people read the opinions
and they will then learn that the judges devoted their
attention exclusively to ascertaining and declaring
what the law u.s. and to nothing else.