Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1858-08-12
Foom the Illinois State Journal.
An Important View of the Dred
Scott DecisiOn.

\ = ~
Scott Decision.
We have already given a short sketch o
the speech delivered by w. Fl. Herndon
Esq, before the Young Mems Republican
Club on last Thursday evening. There
was one point, however, made by MIR. Hern-
don in reference to the Dred Scott decision
which besides being new, is SO important
that we ask the careful attention of oul
readers to it. 1t is startling view of the
doctrine of the Dred Scott case, which de-
cides that negroes are not ''citizens," under
the C Constitution of the United States.
1t is known that under the ruling of the
Supreme Court in the above case, personal
suits in the United States Courts must be
labetween citizens of the United States
The following from the second section Of
the third article of the Constitution is the
provision:
aThe judicial power shall extend to all
cases in law or equity, arising under this
Constitution, the laws of the United States
treaties, ETC., to all eases = : = 6etUeen
c;tizens of different States" etc.
In pursuance of the Constitution and
soon after it was adopted, Congress execu-
ted the power above specified by passing
| an act, of which the following is one of the
provisions:
t.The Circuit Courts shall have original
cognizanee, concurrent with the Courts Of
the several States, of all suits of a eival ma
ture at Common Law or equity, where the
suit is between citizen of the State where
the snit is brought, and a citizen of another
State" etc.
This law was passed in 1889, and is al
most literally copied from the Constitution,
necessarily conforming to it and limited by
it throughout. Ws ask our readers to
mark well the wording of the clause: "abe-
t,oeen citizens of different States" 1t will
be seen that it is necessary that both par
ties to the suit, not only the plaintiff but
the defendant, must be ''citizeas."
Now, the Supreme Court in the bred
Scott case has decided that negro is not
"a citizen" within the meaning of the above
clause of the Constitution; that he cannot
sue to the United States Courts, because
he is not a citizen. As, however, by the
terms of the Constitution, both parties to
the suit must be 'citizeus," if the negro is
incapable of sueing, be is equally incapable
of being sued. If he cannot be plaintiff in
the action, neither can he be defendant, for
he is no more s.citizen" in the one posi-
ton than in the other.
Let US illustrate. Suppose negro of
Illinois owes white man of Missouri a
thousand dollars, which he refuses to pay.
The white man brings suit in the U. s.
Court against the negro to recover the debt.
Upon the trial, in spite of himself, he is
thrown out of the court and loses his debt
because the suit is not "between citizens"
One is a sscitizen" but the other is negro !;
and according to the Dred Scott decision
the courts can give him no remedy, The
Judge tells the white man-"Go out OF
court; you have sued a negro; it is deei-
ded that negro is not citizen, and the
Constitution says all suits must be 6etween
citizens. The Constitution is the supreme
law of the land and must be obeyed. Go
out of court"
Such is an outline of Mr.. Herndon's ar
gument, which he elaborated at length and
fortified by the strongest authorities. We
believe Mr.. Herndon's point cannot be
controverted; and that the Dred Scott de-
cision, which places disability upon ne
groes by saying that they are not citizens,
works most glaring wrong and outrage
upon the white man, by leaving him with
out remedy against them in the United
States Courts, and by making the negro
wholly irresponsible for his own contracts.
We ask intelligent men to examine this
d;ctana of the Supreme Court in the Dred
Scott case, now so boldly endorsed and de-
Tended by Mr.. Douglas, and ask themselves
whittier the democracy are tending. Is
this government made for white men that
they cannot be protected in their rights in
their own courts?