Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1858-10-22
M Nore Free stntea

The Newport Free South, an indepeno
ent anti-slayery journal published at New
port Kentucky, has leader in a receu
number on the 'Sacredness of Judicial De
cision." 1t regards as one of the curiositie
with which the party calling itself Demo
cratic, has all at once been brought to re
gard judicial decisions, especially late de
eision Of the Supreme Court of the Unitet
States. 1t says:
The decision, though contrary to the u
inform practice of the Government and the
understanding of the people for three score
and ten years, and subversive of the doctrine
OF Popular Sovereignty for which the lead
ers of the party at the North had stoutIy
contended, was Immediately adopted, at the
dictatien of its Southern head, into its po-
litical creed as the pole star for its future
guidance. .'The Supreme Court they
say, "has decided that slavery has consli-
tuiional existence in all the Territories ofthe
Union, and that neither Congress nor the
people of the Territories can exclude it
therefrom, but are bound to protect the
shareholders in the enjoyment of their
slave property. Such is the decision of the
! highest tribunal in the land, from which
there is no appeal, and to which all good
citizens are bound quietly to submit. Asan
| authoritve exposition Of the meaning of the
Constitution which is the Supreme law OF
| the land, all legislative bodies, all judicial
| and executive officers, State and National
are bound to conform to the principles of
| this decision, and to be controlled by them
in the discharge of their official duties"
Such is the decree promulgated by the
magnates of the party, and to it all the serfs
| respond, Amen. 1t did not uee to be SO
with The party calling itself Democratic, in
| former years. Until the slave Olligarchy
made them seryile, its leaders were no such
sticklers for the sanctity of judicial decisions.
They held that the judiciary was but a CO.
ordinate branch OF the government, and
that its decisions, though conclusive upon
| the rights of the parties in the cases before
it, were aot binding upon the officers in
other departments of the government, who
as we'll as the members of the judiciary.
were bound by their official oath, to support
the consiituti on as they understood it,
They broadly asserted that Senators and
Representatives,, the President, and all ex-
ecutive officers, acting under the same re-
sPonsibllities, were as competent 10 inter-
pref the constitution for themselves as were
the Judges of the Supreme Court. They
went further and extended this right of pri-
vate judgment to every citizen of the Repub-
lie.
The action of the party in its Conyen-
| tons was conformabie to this doctrine
With such men on the bench as Chief JUS
tice Marshall, Joseph Story and Bushrod
Washingt on, the Supreme Court had decid-
ed, not with a divided bench as in the Dred
| Scot: case, but unanimously, that the char
ter of the United States Bank by Congress
| was Constitutional. Yetin the face of that
decision, the Democratic party has, for the
| last twenty-five years in National and State
Conventions, solemnly resolved that Con-
gress has no constitutional right to charter
National Bank. 1t is simply because the
Dred Scott decision supports and extends
Slavery, to do which the Democratic leaders
are under bonds; that 1t has such an awful
sanctity in their eyes.
We appeal to every intelligent Democrat
to say whether the dictd of Chief Justice
Taney and Judge Wayne are entitled to
more weight or should carry greater author
ity than the opinions of Chief Justice
Marshall and Judge Story. Ifnot, how will
he account for the fact that the decision of u
divided Court in the Dred Scott case, Is
held more sacred and binding on the govern
ment and country than the decision of
| unanimous Court in the case of the United
States Bank, except on the ground that the
former decision establishes slavery in all the
Territories of the Union and nullifed every
attempt by Congress or by the people of the
Territories to exclude it theretroml
II is manifest that the principal reason
why this Dred Scott decision is received
I with such teneration, that il is accounted
treason TO the party to dissent from its die
Ia, is that it makes he constitution, by It's
own inherent tercei to carry slavery into the
Territories and prot ect it there. Ii this de-
cision shall be permitted tc stand the law
of the land and the rule of political action,
the perPetuity of Slavery in the Territories
and in the States to be formed out of them,
is insured. We know that it is said that
the people when they come to form State
Constitutions may prohibit Slavery. But
this right is, in effect, denied by the DreG
Scott decision. Upon these doctrines,
President Buchanan gave q true practical
commentary when he asserted in his Kansas
message that in the formation of a State
Constitution, the people have no right to in
teriere with the title to slaves, held in the
Territory at the time OF the adoption OF the
Constitution. They may prohibit the im-
portation of slaves after the adoption OF the
Constitution, but cannot free those held as
chattles at the time OF its adoption. Th is
denies to the people of the Territories any
constitutional mode by which they can rid
themselves Of the curse OF slavery, but sad
dies it forever upon them and their posterity.
The Presidents Bull, translated into plain
English, is-"No MORE FREE STATES"
The New York Post, commenting ON Mr
Vafley's report remarks;
Mlny important lessons have been learn
ed from this cable, aud many are yet to be
learned, perhaps, before it ceases-as III
the natural course OF things it will soon
cease bind the two continents in cleo
tricul union; but it is now very clear that