Western sentinel. [volume] (Winston [i.e. Winston-Salem], N.C.) 1856-1886, 1858-07-16

ing and the latter taking the oath of office
by which the high ma iesty of Heaven was
invoked as witness to the purity of his in
tentons the administration Of the govern
ment of his country
Mr. President, accursed, thrice accursed,
is that fell spirit of party which desecrates
the noblest sentiments of the human heart;
and which, in the Accomplishment Of its
unholey purposes, hesitates at no reckless
violance of assault on all that is held sac
red by the wise and good. 1t was difficult,
extremely difficult, for us all to sit here
and hear what was said and observe the
manner in which it was said, and repress
the utterance of indignation that bold up
within US. All this is charged by the Sen
ator without the proof of a solitary fact,
without the assertion even of a fact, on
which to base the foul charge. Luckily,
sir, luckily, for us these eminent men are
too highly placed in the reverence, the
estimation, and the regard of the American
people, to have their bright escutcheon
injured by such attacks as thes. Mr. Presi-
dent, in olden times a viper gnawed
file
Although it may not be possible to make
dirct answers to all these insinuations, be-
cause no fact is even suggested on which
they rest, there are some OF them in relation
to which I have the authentic evidence
upon my desk in proof of their falsity.
Was this case got up? What are the
facts? Men should be a little careful in
making such accusations as these; unless,
indeed, they care not whether they be true
Or false, intended to answer the same pur-
pose, whether the one or the other. This
case was got up, was it? BY accident, or
design? In the exquisitely decorous and
appropriate language Of the Senator from
New 1orl-, the Chief Justice of the Uni
ted States and the Chief Magistrate of the
Union were gambling at cards for the case,
and Dred Scott was dummy in the imagin-
ary game? What truth is there in these
insinuations of design? Why, sir, Dred
Scott had sought his freedom by the asser-
ton OF lis rights in the State courts OF
Missouri years before the Kansas-N eb1as-
ka act was ever suggested, and years be
fore the President of the United States was
even a candidate for office; years before
he was even Minister to England.
This case was determined III the supreme
court of the State of Missouri, in 1852, ad-
versely to Dred Scott, and was remanded
10, the lpwereeAtrt for furthar tsi-4l-aIr
buchanan had, | believe, not then gone
to England. The Kansas bill had not
been heard of, and N:1s-11ot IN tho lmagn-
alton of any ,s1an. When the case got
back into the lower court, the counsel for
/ bred Scott, finding that the opinion of the
supreme court Of the State was adverse to
his rights, withdrew his case from the
State court, and cndeavored to better his
| clients chances by going into another ju-
risdiction. That is the way the case got
into the Federal court; and when was
this! The case was carried into the Fed
eral court in the City OF St. Louis, in No
vember, 1853, before even the moeting of
the Congress which passed the Kansas
| Nebraska act; OF course months before
Mr. Dixon, the Senator from Kentucky,
first sprang upon the country, by his a
lnendment, the question in relation to the
repeal Of the Missouri compromise Here
is the record:
{: Be it remembered that heretofore to wit
on the second day of November, in the year
of our Lord 1858, came the above named plain
tiff, Drcd Scott, by his attorney, and filed in
the clerk Office of the circuit court of the Uui-
ted States for the Missouri district the follow
ing declaration against the defendant, L. A
Sanford"
Was that a case gotten up by design, be
tween the President and the court here
It was never carried there until they had
lost all chance in the State coart; it was
carried there as the last desperate resource
Of defeated counsel, earger to maiutain
what he he conceived to be the rights OF
his client Who was the counsel2 The
Senators of Missouri can tell us who r. III
Field, of St. Louis. is, and probably they
will verify here-say-that he is one of the
most determined Free-Soilers in the State
of Missouri; has always declined to vote
at elections until he was able to cast his
vote for a Free=Soil candidate, and unit
he aided in thezelection Of the Free-Soi
Representative from the ST. Louis districi
who now sit in the other Chamber.
This case, thus instituted in November
1853, was determined in the court below
and writ of error was taken to the Su
preme Court Of the United States, before
the Kansas bill was passed, and whilst Mr.
Buchanan was in England - When j
reached the Supreme Coult Of the Unitet
States what became Of it? What does til,
Senator from New York say became Of if
:. The counsel who had appeard for the ne
gro had volunteered from motives of charity
and, ignorant Of the course of the disposition
which was to be made of the cause''-
which the Senator had previously insin
! uated was gotten up by design
, -: had argued that his client had been free
from slavery by operations of the Missoul
/ prohibition of 1926 The opposing counse
paid by the defending slaveholder"-
, I happen to know, however, what ma,
J be the fact with the other, that one of til