New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-04-02

sion to the assertions Of the FIVE slavehodiu Judges
made in defiance of hstory, in defiance OF the seA'
of the Constitution, and in defiance Of the construc
ton hitherto universally pu; upon that text mat
the Constitution does expressly recognize negroes
IS property, still, according to any just coostruc
tion, it could only be property in the Limited and
defessibe sense above pointed ous-property in
those States which BY their legislation might choose
10 regard them IS property, and so long as tha:
local legislation might choose so to regard them,
but msn and freemen everys here else, except so
far as the fugitive cause in the Constitution might
confer limited power for the reclamation Of run.
avsys.
But such a limited recognition Of the right of
property in slaves, even suppose it to exist in the
Federal Constitution, would BY no means have
suited the purposes of the FIVE shareholders who
control the decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States. A recognition of the right OF
property in slaves, thus lini ed, would by no means
give to slavehold, (which was the particular
point the Court was driving at-tbe power of
moving into new territory with their slaves, and
Il ere continuing ~ hold them, like their horses
without the necessity Of any special legislation
Authorizing them 20 TO do, and indeed in spite OF
ary special territorial legislation to the contrary
To meet The necessity of their case, these five
slaveholdir lawyers have been driven to go step
further. Not content with having undertaken to
set up in ascertsiuipg the and meaniog Of the
Federal Constitution, the seJtimeDt, usage andlaws
of two Sales TO override those Of the other eleven,
upon the general question )f the nature OF the prop
erty which a Shareholder has In bis slaves, they
have undertaken TO set up the extravagant new
tangled notions Of set of Pro-Sl.very fanatcs
which have sprung into existence within the last
ten or if cen years overriding aud setting aside
the established and we'll settled judgment as 10 this
matter Ct the jurists of al Christendom, Including
among tbe Dumber hose Of sayehOlding as we'll as
Of Notwithstanding Sta.es
1t ia no wonder that decision like th's-a de-
csiOn which not only seeks to strike out of exist
epce the whole idea of human rights, aud to repre-
sent all the illusions to that subject in the docu-
mems Of the RevO uIiOn as mere hJurlshes of rhet
ORC, if not intentional dec. ptions-bu. decision
wh Oh at The sane time upses the long aud well
established doctrines Of al jurists, even those Of
tie most conservative character, as to the nature
Of property in slaves, oyerturniDg, at the same
time, ,he practical construction gwen to the Con-
s,tution from its adoption down to the present
moment, as to the power of Congress- over the
TerrtoIies-i il no wonder, we shy, that such de-
ci,on excites comment, excites criticism, eIcites
Indignation, eIcites denunciation; and it Will car
tarly require something in the way of argument
and exposition far beyond anything yet brought for
ward by the Court or its apOogsts to reconcile the
Notwithstanding public 10 such INDUSTRIOUS stretch
Of judicial authority.