Pointe Coupee Democrat. [volume] (False River [i.e. New Roads], Parish of Pointe Coupee [La.]) 1858-1862, 1858-05-01

!. which they rest, there arc certain facts
so lnsinuated in relation to which
: have the authentic evidence upon my
: desk in proof of tlleir falsity.
: Was this case got up? What are the
, fncts? Men should be q little careful in
: making such: accusations as these; un-
less, indeed, they care not whether they
be true Or false, being intended to an
swer some purpose, whether the one or
the other This case was got up, was
it2 By accident OF design? In the ex.
quisitely decoro1s and appropriate lam
gnage of the Senator from New York,
the Chief Justice of the United States
and the Chief Magistrate Of the Union
were gambling at cards for the case,
and bred Scott was dummy in the inn
aginary game. What truth is there in
these insinuations of design? Why,
sir, Dred Scott had sought his freedom
by the assertion of his rights in the
State courts of Missouri years before
the Nebraska Act was ever sug=
gested, and years before the President
of the United States was even candi-
date for office; years before he was even
Minister to England
This case was determined in the SUI
premc Court of the State of Missouri,
IN 1852, adversely to Dred Scott, ana
was rcmanded to the lower court for
further trial, Mr.. Buchanan had, | be-
lieve, not then gone to England The
Kansas Bill had not been heard of.
and was not in the Imagination of any
man. When the case got back into the
lower court, the council for Dred Scott,
finding that the opinion of the Supreme
Court Of the State was adverse to his
rights, withdrew his case from the State
court court, and endeavored to better
his clients chances by going into anoth-
|er jurisdiction. That is the way the
case got into the federal court: and when
was this? The case was carried into
the federal court in the city of ST. Louis,
in November, 1858, before even the
meeting of Congress which passed the
Kansas-Nebraska Act; of course months
before Mr. Dixon, the Senator from Ken
lucky, first sprang upon the country, by
his amendment, the question in relation
to the repeal of the Missouri Compro-
mise. 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 plaintiff, Dred Scott, by his Attor-
ney, and filed in the clerks Office of the
Circuit Court of the United States for
the Missouri District the following dec
laration against the defendant John T.
A. Sandford.1
Was thatcase gotten up with design,
between the President and the court
here It was never carried there until
they had lost all chance in the State
court it was carried there as the last
desperate resource of defeated counsel;
eager to maintain what he conceived to
be the rights of his client. Who was
this counsel? The Senators from Mis-
souri, can tell us who Mr.. R. NJ. Field, of
St. Louis, is, and probably they will ver
ify the assertion which make here upon
give it only upon hearsay
that he is one of the most determined
Free Soilers III the State of Missouri /;
has always refused to vote at elections
until he was able to cast his vote for a
Free-Soil candidate, and until he aided
in the election Of the Free-soil Repre-
sentative from the st. Louis district who
now sits in the other chamber.
This case, brought up in November,
1853, was determined in the court below,
and a writ of error was taken to the
Supreme Court of the United States,
H. Es,ll nv,I
whilst Mr.. Buchanan was in England !
When it reached the Supreme Court of
he United States, what became of itY
What does the Senator from New York
say became of it?
- /" The counsel who had appeared for
he negro hadvel1nteered from motives
# charity, and ignorant Of course~ef
he disposition which was to be made OF
he cause"-which the Senator had pre-
viously insinuated was gotten up by de-
sign" had argued that his client had
been freed from slavery by operation OF
she Missouri Prohibition of 1920. The
opposing counsel, paid by the defending
happen to know, however, whatev-
sr may be the fact with the other, that
,ne of the opposing counsel was not
paid by any slaveholder at all; that one
IF the opposing counsel volunteered as
1mieus eurie by virtue of his position as
mead of the bar Of the Supreme Court
If the United States. by virtue Of his
position as ex-Attarney General of the
United States, by virtue of his position
IS compeer of the honorable Senator,
and his former colleague on this floor
from the State of Maryland, Mr.. Rever-
iy johnson. That gentleman volun-
teered in the case as amseas earsG be-