The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-09-14

spaed Ne should be made 10 Agents date
septoM " g pssob who authorized 70 make oolectons
y w v..a @s s,1 March s g. us isSs'~G
The foregoing Intended olnelude agents eolee
tors thai heretofore employed this but
only performed such service in other parts ohe
country asl- tfstAt q ie Ap zs-u
WHITING DOWN THE DRIED SCOTT DECISION.
The Chicago Times is engaged in an Industrious at
tempt to limit and reduce the scope of the bred
Scott decision in order to reconcile with it the dec
larations Of Judge Douglas at Freeport, in which
the Judge for the authorities of the Terrific
riss, while yet they are Territories, power to ex-
cude slavery from their limits. The Judge him
self endeavored to modify the effect of his declare
tons by claiming for the territorial legislatures pow
er to introduce as well to exclude slavery but
either branch of his assertion is heretcal and un-
sound. The purport of the bred Scott decision is
that slavery is egazed in the Territories without
express law, Poprio uigore of the constitution and
therefore, the introduction by express law is I'M
necessary, as its exclusion by express law would
be unconstitutional. When, therefore, Judge Doug
las that slavery may be introduced excluded
by territorial legislation he makes a declaration
doubly inconsistent with the bred Scott decision
The line of defence assumed by the Chicago
Times, his personal organ, is that of explaining away
the language of the Justices of the Supreme Court
and maintaining that the decision settled nothing but
one or two points which were directly and techni-
caly before the court. When, for instance, Judge
fancy expressly declares, abiding TO the Missouri
prohibition, that Congress has power to prohibit
slavery in the Territories, and that, consequently,
no agent of Congress in Territory, whether it be
the territorial Legislature, executive, or Judiciary
can exclude it, the Chicago Times would have us to
believe that these declarations obiter dica of
the Chief Justice, and not in technical effect, the
decision of tho court That there were great prin-
ciples agreed upon by the majority of the court
the grounds on which they based their decision Of
the special points before it, makes difference with
Che Chicago Times they We're not specially before
il for directdecsion Though the points really be-
fore the court for decision, and really decided, de-
pended upon the preliminary decision of these others,
and were but the mere coroares of them, still the
organ Of Mr. Douglas would insist that they but
the o6tsr dcta of the Judges and, whatever Senator
Douglas may have said at Frecport in contravention
of them he is not on that account to be considered
as at variance with the court upon the points techl
cally before it and directly decided by it.
We extract at some length from late article of
Judge Douglass personal organ the Times
Does Senator Douglas ropudate the bred Scott dec-
sion bred Scott the slave of John H. A Sanford
and had sued for his freedom in the United States district
court of Missouri and the question before the Supreme
Court at Washington was on writ Of error whether the
plaintiff being negro of slave parentage could in
the United States cout That the only question in
the Chief Justice fancy himself states the ques
tions thus; VIII y. 81 sssaa Lea
ton to hear and determine the between these par
ties Aud, E.N s.& E.n. -,
q If it had jurisdiction is the judgment it has given
erroneous not 7 4a t.FT
to the Court for the Senate Of the United States is there
any ntimation that the involved any other ut-
mate questions than those already stated
The closing paragraph of Judge Taney's opinion rn-
braces the whole decision in condensed form We here
copy it. and invite the reader especially to note it
Upon the WHOLE therefore, it is the judgment of this
court that it appears by the record before that the
plaintiff in is not citizen of Missouri, in the
in which that word is used in the constitution and that
the circuit of the United States for that reason
had jurisdiction in the case, and could give udg
ment in it, Its Judgment for the defendant must
queny, be reversed and mandate issued directing the
suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The decision disposes, it will have been SEEM Of Just
the two questions which the court announced in the be-
ginning other question is much limited at
in the summing up Of the points
repudates the bred Scott decision it stands the
records of the COURT When and where has he uttered
authorized to be uttered sentiment from which such
inference could be drawn What ask is there In
all the speeches Of Senator Douglas in the editorials of
the journals in Illinois, and throughout the land which
support him, to warrant the accusation AS for our
selves, accept the bred Scott decision embodyng
the true law Of the constitution and planest com
We endorse that decision in all its length
and breadth but iou pass on,ccrd 10 position that The
srss Goaf haze not taken much less established and against
roLca all tie dictates Of intelligent mtelleo rebel On this
the decision in controversy and the ground the
Times last winter when the Washington Union under
took expound that decision in support of its assertion
that lgalizsd Slavery oil the Territories not only but in
all the States and this whether slavery wanted by
the people whether it detested by them the
same ground repeat and with the same conscientious
motives that defended the decision pronounced by
Chief Justice fancy. denounced trapped and counter
teded BY Me nicouposo Of he Washington Union And
that that Journal aided by the allied press of Illinois, is
at it's infamous work again. we shall not hold back
bred Scott declared not citizen of the United
States and consequently could not such in the
courts of the United States The had previously
been declared in Missouri and the consequently
caused mandate to be issued annung the judgment OF
the inferior tribunal Tint is 49, caen don 10 the
jia Of tie case that there Of rs all that The decided
the ,ohos Of their rela,pe In reaching these
conclusions it is true the court asserted that the Missouri
restriction unconstitutional And agree that It
was The court asserted many other propositions, all
Of whic perhaps, were sound, but all that is not
teral any point involved 1t has been in
tiuated that the Suprerne Court desires to exat