The Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, Ohio) 1853-1861, 1858-08-12

Speech Of Mr. Hcrndcn--An ImPor.
tnnt view of thc Drcd Scott Dccis-
ION.
| We have already given q short sketch Of the
speech delivered by w. II. Hcrndon, Esq, before
the Young Mems Republsen Club, on last
Thursday evening There was one point how
ever, made by Mr.. Herndon in reference to the
Dred Scott decision, which besiues being new,
is so important that we ask the careful attention
of our readers to IL. II is a startling view Of
the doctrine of the Dred Scott CASE
| II is known that under the ruling OF the Su-
preme Court in the above case, personal suits IN
the United States courts must be " between citi-
gems f" of the United States. The following
from the second section Of the third article OF
the Constitution is the provision
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases
in law or equity, arising under this Constitution,
the laws OF the United States, treaties, &c; to
all cases bettpttn citizens Of the United
| States &c.
In pursuance Of the Constitution and soon
after il was adopted, Congress executed the pow
cr above specified by passing on act, OF which
the following is one of the provisions ;
"The Circuit Courts shall have original cog
nizance concurrent with the courts OF tho sew
eIal States of oil suits Of civil nature at common
law or in equity, where = n the suit is be-
tween a citizen Of the State where the suit is
brought and a citizen Of another State" &c.
This law was passed in 1889, aud is almost
literally copied from the Constitution, necessa-
riiy conforming TO it and limited to il through
ont. We ask our readers to mark well the
wording Of the clause " btttceen the citizens 0f
the different States" II will be seen that it is
necessary that both parties TO tho suit, not only
the plaintiff, but the defendant, must be citi-
zens."
Now, the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott
case, has decided that negro is not a "ctizen'
within tho meaning Of the above clause Of the
| Constitution that is, that he cannot sue in the
United States courts because he is not a citizen.
As, however, by the terms Of the Constitution,
both parties to thi suit must be " citiz,ns; !" il
the negro Is incapable OF being sued. II he can
not be plaintiff in the action, neither can he be
attendant, for he is no more "citizen" in the
one position than III the other.
! Let us illustrate. Suppose negro of Illinois
owes a white man Of Missouri thousand dol
lars which he refuses to puy The white man
brings suit in the United States court against
! the negro to recover the debt. Upon the trial,
! in spite of himself, he is thrown out of court
and loses his debt, because the suit ia not "be-
tween citizens One is "citizen,' but the
other is negro and according to the Dred
Scott decision the courts can give him no RENE
DIV. The Judge tells the white man" Go out
OF court you have sued negro il is decided
ton says all suits mast be bctlUccn citizens. The
| Constitution is the Supreme law of the land
and must be obeyeG Go out of court"
Such is an outline of Mr. Herndons argu-
ment, which he elaborated at length and forti-
fed by the strongest authorities. We believe
Mr.. IIerndon's point cannot be controverted /;
and that the Dred Scott dccision,whch places a
disability upon negroes by saying that they are
not citizens, works garing wrong aud outrage
upon tho white man, by leaving him without
remedy against them in the United States courts,
anl by making the negro wholly irresponsible
for his contracts. 1t thus introduces into the
body of society set OF Arabs, who may be.
come prey upon society but against whom
there can be no redress had.
We ask intelgen. men to examine this dictum
of tho Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case,
now So boldly endorsed and defended by Mr..
Douglas and ask themselves whittier tho Democ-
racy are tending Is the Government made for
negroes, that white men cannot be protected in
their rights in their own courts Illinois State
| Journal