New-York daily tribune., 1858-03-05


Court was met in the most perfect manner. The
parts OF Florentine mosaic or q tesselated pave
mept never dovetalled in together more admirably
than did the testimony and tbe law 10 this ease.
They seemed 10 have been made 70 order and by
plan and specifications, 10 tt the one the other.
There were, 10 be sure, some discrepancies between
the testimony now aud three years ago; but they
were accounted for on the principle that the mem
ory improves with time and that We naturally recol
lect thing better four years after it happened than
one.
But il - high time 10 stop, though feel rnst
now as If bad pentyto say. Perhaps will write
you again soon BYLEs.
Prom Our Own Correspondent.
BosroN, March 3, 1855.
The Legislature is coming "up to the scratch
beautifully. The House Of Representatives es-
pecialy has done several very credtable things
cir ce last wrote. l mentioned that Mr.. Vose aud
his conservative brethren Of the Judiciary Commit
tee had made up their minds to attempt repeal of
the Jury law Of 1855, and alec to modify and re-
strict the operation Of the law of last year allowing
parties in civil suits 10 be witnesses tberen. Both
these schemes have signaIy failed. The biI 10 re-
PEAL the Jury law was killed on Saturday by such
decided vote that it's friends had not presence OF
mind enough 10 demand division of the House so
the actual majority against repeal cannot De Known;
but Judging by the response, 10 was very large-at
least two 10 one. The debate has done much 20
strengthen the law and for all practical use 1t VIII
now stand stronger than it did before the supreme
Court undertook 10 set II aside. Caeo Cushng ahu
Marcus Morton, both OF them eI'Judges ol tue
Supreme Court of the State and both OF them gu.
uerior. in point of intellectual power and legal
acuteness, 10 a majority of our present Judges SAID
that the act of 1855 only declared what had always
been law from time immemoria Mr. Cushing SAID
il was "a declaratory truism," and Judge Morton
said the Jury had always had the power TO judge OF
the law and the poicr could not be disconnected from
the right. Now, the whole purpose OF Judge Shaws
argument in deciding the case of Commonwealth
agt. Porter is TO dscOnnect the power from the
right. Judge Morton's opinion as 10 his success
in this endeayor is not very fatterng. For the
reasons they gave, both Judge Morton and Mr..
Gushing seemed somewhat indifferent as to the
question of repeal. Cushing, however, preferred
that the law should be repealed, and Morton that
il should stand. Cushing Pro-Slsyery tendencies
no doubt urged him to go for repeal, and be
probably had much deeper feelings than he ex-
pressed relation to the subject 1t ia not improbable
that he thought any urgent endeavor ON his part TO
have the law repealed would only tend TO defeat his
purpose So he confined his attention, iu his speech
to certain collateral points which had been raised
by Mr.. Wells Of Greenfield who made an excellent
speech against the repeating bill. Mr.. Wells, with
the audable and legitimate purpose Of obtaining
votes against the bill by arousing the AntlSlavery
feeling of the House, had alluded to the Dred Scott
decision, the resignation of Judge Curtis and the
appointment Of Nathan Clifford, and the imprlson-
nent of PassmOre Williamson. Gushing took no.
tice of each of these points. His speech, which
was two hours long, has been revised by himself
and printed in The Post; SO l suppose he means to
stand by it, His Interpretation OF the Dred Scott
decision is mainly repetition OF the view which he
took of that subject in his speech at Newburyport
last Fall-a speech which has not been taken much
notice Of as it has only recently been printed in
form which enables it to reach the public. In some
of my Out-Of-th -the-way researches, some time last
Fall, met with a copy of The Boston Courier con-
tanning report of it, and at that time called your
attention to the fact that in it Mr.. Gushing had
taken occasion to contradict point blank the asser-
ton made by Mr.. Buchanan in the Silman letter
(Which he has since repeated i'll his official Message
Oh the LecOmptOn COnsttutiOn) that the Supreme
Court in the Scott case, had decided that Slavery
exists in Kansasunde the Constitution Of the United
States and must exist there until it is expelled by
the people, when they frame State Constitution.
Mr.. Churchill of Milton undertook to draw Mr..
Gushing into some further discussion Of this point,
but he eyaded it, for lack of time or on some other
pretense. He did not hesitate, however, to express
his dissent from one portion of Judge Taneys de-
cisiOn, viz: that which declares that there is no
power given by the Constitution to the Federal
government to establish maintain Territories
bordering on the United States, or at distance, to
be ruled and governed at its pleasure to enlarge
its Territorial limits in any way, except by the ad
mission of new States. i suppose Mr.. Gushing means
to hold to construction of the Constitution which
will enable him to be consistent with the pet idea
which be is developing now in the Legislature aud
elsewhere, that all races except the Caucasian are
to be subdued, aud kept in subectiOn The mixed
Mexican population may be subdued, and he means
to guard against admitting them into the Union upon
an equality with ourselves.
Mr.. Cushing denied very emphaticaly that the
Dred Scott decision had any tendency to introduce
Slavery into Massachusetts,. He declared that the
very reverse of this the fact and that the basis
of the whole decision is the right of each State To
determine the status Of all persOns within its limits
Here is his language as revised, though / think he
did not use the word "domiciled' in his speech:
What am now condemnng is the assertion that
encounter somewhere every day-that the opinions of
the Supreme Court put Slavery into Massachusetts.
That / utterly deny. That contradict. Instead Of
doing that, say they did the very of it, and
decided that the State Of Massachusetts is absolute
sovereign mistress of the conc itiol of persons DOM
ciled within her borders"
Did Mr. Gushing, when he revised his speech,
mean to leave room for the exception as to slaves
IN trdns'tn , IL would seem 80. And yet he said
something in reply to Mr.. Wells, which appears 10
cut him completely off from asserting to any de-
cision OF the Supreme Court in the Lennon case or
any other, against the North should such de.
cison be made. He says:
The gentleman assumes that but for the decision
Of the case OF Dred Scott Sandford the citizen Of
Massachusetts has all equal rights in Missouri under
the Constitution. Now let what the proposition
of the Constitution 10 which he refers means and |
beg that the gentleman will read what there Is 10 the
various commentaries upon the subject What are
the rights OF citizen of Virginia in Virginia Oae
right is to hold slaves Does the gentleman admit
that he has that night in Massachusetts, Ii hi.
theory is tue, he has. He has the right carry his
slave through the State OF North Carolina into South
Carolina Nls he lie LLyht 10 cnru IL. sLnr LL....L