The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-10-23
WASHINGTON CITY, SATURDAY, OCTOBER %, 1853

~
lawyer knows that in every other possible all the
national courts well all the State courts and those
in the District of Columbia open 10 the negro with
out limitation restriction, aud nothing to the don
ary appears in the bred Scott decision IL has been
also stated thousands of times that Chief Justice Ia
ney decided that 'thc negro had rights which the
white bound to respect There is nothing like,
this in his opinion in that of any other member of the
court What lac did say. when stating historical facts
to opinions entertained by the British and colonial
government aud in many other countries, this That
tey had for than century before hc declaration
OF independence been regarded beings of inferior
order and altogether unfit to associate with the white
race either in social or political relations and so far in
ciior ual 'hey hao no rgh's "hcn .nc whi'e nun was
pounu 70 espoc,, anu .n' 'he negro niene Jsty anu
iaWuiiy oo iaauoeu W e'asei, ~ 'i's oenen@ no
'l'u nun wn po.enu 'h'' ,e 'eui1he "a wsi
Aio"n nis.o'o ace 70 uoo''a''on o' aseisoa ,nul
.hB .'ie p'esNn' iesai iol'orS :" rih's VI 'ii' hc
E - . M ~ :. - o'''s n .''o '" VI ~ . piose"' ,mo ~
=. "s'on u .is county, anu VIC h,ow !. ~ hoe- Inc
eoi Jus'ou uoup'css iu ~ mn 'nu ing iao's saS.ea "
bancroft History, una, the hg oi spain ana Queen
W VI VIZ. i'e.s'eu IN au Ensish M .o,ps r,p
ny ui'' oohi"e"u 70 in'ro'uee ih.o @ .nc "es' niiH
,. eo'o'oS Nes ~ni 'i''y yoa' .hu ~,
M M .' w "'s , ,o p'i'y 'eeosnisc ~ es'y pp'"on eo
soseiihoh,s which coicrieu On uic f'gtsn ,nonopoy
~ h ,'pe, oa' u'so 70 inc ,aoe Una. 1"suSe 'oi' anu
ne 'o'ioi Jaoses anu o'hei uis''isu,sheu i'"Scis, N
oiuohe ui fiehsn attorney general give ~ as ueii
vpon' s', s'ioh SLAVES "cro iA"iu P'opcr'y uno 'io
"mn m "a nhs'anu -
ino .poVc niisquo,'oh hoh ''e ophoi oi .nc onie,
ou'o % siie s,ahc upon onc VI 'ho hihues' heAi'eo
anu pucse men lhat nSe, ana VINO edueaea anu CON
,eicu iseuoin' iohs years Bo upon 'hc Slaves Who ie
inhc,eu Ho ms latcr, anu nc aoes no. now own one,
nor iNS he ol many years y comes WIN pecuiit pp
si"ce noi 'nose VINO Aic now suploi.ns ioi seat ~
nohsess man whose s!hpa'hcs or he negro are mar,
Hcsted py ah open declaraon that ne wouiu aooilsh
slavery az thc expense OF annhiatng the whole African
race, wnlen ccfn'y wouiu DC very eheetui moae OF
uooosll'snils W a. olyeo. hc'' syhpa'ny ioi ue ne
gro iorls no portion Oh te motives OF te leaers OF
lat Wy. s proven ny the rccorueu utse 10 trans
P,'t inn " 'ne sphy 'esiois o oen'ini anie''eu'
whcic nc wouiu meet suarvtoh ana speedy nhu grave
'ro'h thc cnecls o i's ocadiy cnma'o
THE DRIED SCOTT DECISION, AND WHAT II 49,
No action of any tribunal has been little understood
more misreprcsened than this decision The republ
press has condemned without publishing it, that
it might speak for ITSELF while they have spread broad
the dissenting opinions. know of but five papers
in the Union that have published it entire. The case
this Dred Scott was originally slave in Missouri
and had been taken by his master first into Illinois, "a
free State and afterwards into the Louisiana purchase
north of the Missouri compromise line and then returned
to Missouri. These facts he insisted made him free after
his return. After abandoning n suit where the ruling
against him in the STATE court he brought claim
ing his freedom in the United States circuit court for the
district of Missouri claiming jurisdiction for that
upon the ground that he citizen under the constu
ton and laws of the United States In the circuit court
the decision against him the merits He brought
it to the Supreme Court where it conceded by his
counsel that il he not such citizen the court
below had Jurisdiction and insisted chat the Supreme
Court must reverse the Judgment upon that gronnd
while it admitted on both sides and conceded by the
court that his rights could be asserted in the State and
territorial courts wherever the defendant could be found
and served with process His counsel insisted
LIST. That his MASTER by taking him into Illinois and
into the territory north the compromise line,
him free.
I'd And that free the fact of his being free consti
tuted him citizen of of these places and therefore
citizen of the United States and consequently circuit
court had jurisdiction.
These questions twice elaborJtely argued by his
counsel in the Supreme Court and considered and
discussed by all the judges, who give opinions including
the two who disscned the whole concurring that
these questions before them and they were accord
ngly decided by the court ia its final Judgment The
court had to pass upon the first question before the other
could properly arise Scott did not pretend he could
citizen unless he established the fact that he free
and If he not citizen, he conceded that his case
should have been dismissed below for want Of iurisdc-
in the circuit court to aducate upon it, The court held
they did years before in Srader Graham 40
Howard, S2)
ls That returning from free State 1llinois) to
Missouri under the laws of the latter State settled by
her highest tribunals (Which, under tho constitution and
laws of the United States they bound follow as
they had many times previously and unanimously dec
ded) he slave and not free and therefore, under
the theory Of his counsel he could not be citizen
3D. That his return from the Territory north of the
Compromise line to Missouri he not free the same
and for additional reason--to wit That under the !
constitution OF the United States Congress a author
ity to pass the act establishing that line and therefore,
while north of it, he not in the territory where sla
very prohibited and, consequently going there did
not confer freedom upon him. II followed that, not be-
ing free, he not under the argument of his COUNSEL
tl,p