Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1857-08-21
CASE OF DRED SCOTT.


/, That decision declares two propositions
first, that negro eau not sue in the U. S
: courts aud, second, that Congress can no
prohibit slavery in the Territories. 1t wa
made by divided contributing differ
emily on the different points. Judge Dou
glas does not discuss the merits of the de
cision; and, in that respect, l shall follow
his example. believing l could no NOR,
improve on M'Lean than he on Tauey
lie denounces all who question the cor
rectness Of that decision, as Offering vio
lent resistance to it. But who resiias 1t:
Who has, in spite of the decision, declared
bred Scott free, and resisted the authority
Of his master over him?
USES OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS.
Judicial decisions have two uscs-frst
to absolutely determine tie case decided
and, secondly, to indicate to the public
how other similar cases will be decided
when they arise For the latter use, they
are called "precedents" sud authorities. -
! We believe, as much as Judge Douglas,
(perhaps more) in obedience to, and res.
pect for, the Judicial department of gov
ernment We thiEk its decisions on con.
stitutional questions, when fully settled,
should control. But we think the Dred
Scott Decision erroneous We know the
court that made Il has often oUe,ruled its
ovn decisions, and pc shall do rhot re Gun
to haze IL orerrule this. We offer no un.
lawful resistance to it.
WHEN THEY ARE AUTHORITY.
Judicial decisions are of greater or less
authority as precedents, according to cir.
cumstances. That this should be so, ac-
cords both with common sense and the
customary understanding of the profession.
! Ifthis important decision had been made
BY the unanimous concurrence Of the judges,
and WITHOUT any dPpareat partisan bias,
and in accordance niM the steady practice
of The departments throughout our history,
and had been in no part based on assumed
historical facts ,chich are really not true /;
or, if wanting in some Of these, it had been
before the court more than once, and had
there been affirmed and re-ctfrmed through
course of years, it then might be, per-
haps would be, factious, nay, even revolu-
tionary, to not acquiesce in it as precedent.
DISAGREEMENT NOT DIsREspEcrFUL.
But when, as is true, we find it ,cant-
ing in all these claims to the public conf
dence,it is not resistance, it is not factious,
it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as
not having yet quite established settled
doctrine for the country. But Douglas
considers this view awful Hear him:
The courts are the tribunals prescribed by
Of the people, TO determine, expound and en-
force the law. Hence, whoever resists the
final decision of the highest judicial tribunal,
aims deadly blow 10 our whole Republican
system Of governmental blow which if sue.
cessful would place all our rights and liber.
ties at the mercy of passion, anarchy and vo-
lence. repeat, therefore, that if resistance
10 the decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States, in matter like the points deci-
ded in the Dred Scott case, clearly within
their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitu-
ton, shall be forced upon the country as a
political issue, il will become distinct and
naked issue between the friends and the enc
mics OF the ConsttutiOn-the friends and the
enemies OF the supremacy of the laws"
DOUGLAS OPPOSING A DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT.
Why, this same Supreme Court once
decided a National Bank to be constitu-
tional but Gen. Jackson, as President of
the United States, s,disreearded the decision,
and vetoed the bill for re-eharter, partly
on constitutional grounds, declaring that
each public functionary must support the
Constitution, "as he understands it," But
hear the Generals own words. Here they
are, taken from his own veto message:
cit is maintained by the advocates of the I
bank,that It's consitutionaity,i all It's features
ought to be considered as settled by precedent, /
and by the Supreme Court. To this conclu- 1
sion | can not assent. Mere precedent IS a .
dangerous source of authority, and should not
be regarded as deciding questions of consiitu-
tionai power, except where the acquiescence
of the people aud the States can be considered |
as well settled. So far from this being the .
case on this subject, an argument against the .
bank might be based on precedent. One Con-
gress IN 1871, decided in favor Of a bank; an
other. in 1911, decided against it. One Con.
gress, in 1915, decided against bank ano-
ther, IN 1916, decided in its favor. Prior 10 .
the present Congress therefore, the precedents /
drawn from tina, source were equal If we re-
sort to the States, the expressions of legisia-
tive, judicial, and executive opinions against
the bank, they have been probably TO those IN
its favor as four to one. There is nothing in
precedent, therefore, which if its authority
were admitted, ought TO weigh in favor OF the
act before me-"
drop the quotation merely to remark
that all there erer ras, IN The ,ody of prece-
lent, up to the bred Scott decision, on the
points therein decided, had been against
hat decision. But hear Gen. J. further:
fthe opinion of the Supreme Court cover
ID the whole ground of this act, it ought not
o control the coordinate authorities of this
government. The Congress, the executive
and the court must each for itself be guided
oy its own opinion of the Constitution. Each
public officer, who takes an oath to support
he Constitution, swears that he will support
l as he understands it, and not as it is under
'tood by Others
Again and again have l heard Judge
Douglas denounce that Bank decision, and
lpplaud Gen. Jackson for denouncing it.
t would be interesting for him to look
'ver his recent speech, aud see how ex-
ctly his fierce philippe against US falls {
lpon his own head. 1t will call to his {
mind q long and fierce political war in this 4