The weekly north Iowa times. [volume] (McGregor, Iowa) 1857-1867, 1859-06-01
WHOLE NO. 1877.
Now HamPshire Correspo1ldsnes:
Novropp NJ n 1oKO

CONCORD, N. H., l66v.
Ed. Tsma We have considered at some
length two questions raised in the case. A
third is, was the doinicil of Dred and his
master out Of Mo-, permanent or temporary
as shown by the agreed facts This ques-
ton has no more attractive features than it
has at every town meeting about ones right
to vote-which depends generally on where
''he dwells and has his home" Therefore
we forbear to discuss it and merely call at
tention to the fact that in the discussion of
the point, Justice Curtis (page s02 --)
goes beyond all the rest Of the Judges and
asserts the doctrine that master may, for a
temporary purpose, take slave upon free
soil and hold him there and claim him as
slAre upon his return to slave soil. as having
never been free. 1t is true, this doctrine
has been held By eminent statesmen and
jurists. VIM. II. Seward Of New York,
(see his letter in 1883, 2d Vol. Bcnton's
Thirty years view.) Slavery hating Chief
Justice Williams, of Conn.,, in Jackson Is.
Bullock (l2 Conn. Reports, who there says:
While therefore this State exercised its un-
doubted right to prevent the increase Of
slaves among US, they meant to do it in such
a manner as not to give offence to our sister
States by impeding their citizens in travel
ing through this State with their servants
or slaves. To same effect, see Williams rs.
People "a Scam. 461 Illinois) No such
doctrine was held by the Court in Dred's
case, 4th (though out Of its order) Drcd
Scott having had temporary domicil on
free soil, and returned with his master to a
slave State, on the laws of which did his
status as free or slave depend. The Chief
Justice and Justice Wayne (p. 452) held
that his status as free or slave depended
upon the laws of Mo-, the place where he
was indisputably domiciled. Judge Wilson
| Up. 459) says, "our opinion is that the ques-
ton is one which to each State to decide for
itself either by its Legislature Or Courts of
justice" With this Judge Grier (p. 469)
concurs. Justice -- (p. 1860 with
which Justice Campbell fully concurs
(p. 5O0.) Compress the opinion Of these
six Judges with whom Judge Catron in the
result concurs, into nutshell and It's, that
every free State shall determine for itself the
status, whether slave or free, Of every person
domiciled permanently within its limits,
that the same rule applies to slave States.
Let us reflect moment on the course taken
by the Republican press and orators with
regard to this case. All over the Union il
has been denounced as having ''estab,ished
slacery,in erery free State in the Union. 81
The whole vocabulary Of the Styx has beer
poured out upon it; and upon the Judge,
who pronounced it, when if that party
either as . party or its members as individ.
uals, have single grain Of honesty or hon.
or, they should be blessing those Judges for
deciding as they did, in effect that neither
Congress nor any State directly or indirect,
ly can do that in single free State. This
decision is the cornerstone upon which
every free State can repose in peace. 1t is
their sheet anchor. One of the most just
and strongest State rights decisions that has
ever been made in this Union 1t settles
forever that no slave State can affect the
status of any person who is permanently
domiciled in any free State nor the domestic
concerns of such State. What could be
more Democratic? What more can any
honest Republican ask? Itmay not be un-
worthy of notice here that the supporters of
the opposite doctrine claim as authority the
judgement of Lord Mansfield in the case of
Lewis Somerset on habeas corpas, (Vol. 20
Howell's State trials,) which case was not
as has been generally supposed the first
judgement-an original outgushing Of light
in that eminent Judge-but was based on
the decision Gin lst Solkilds Reports, 666)
in which it was held by Holt, C. j., that as
soon as negro comes into England he be-
comes free. One may be william in Eng
land but not slave, ct per Powell, Justice.
In william the owner has a property, but it
is as an inheritance, "the laws took no notice
of negro" The effect of this much
lauded case, then is, that while negro was
free in Britain, because the law knew no
such term as negro, white man could be a
blood could be held as property. Those
who honor this decision so much on one
point, should lavish their praise as well on
the other, that white men were and could be
held as slaves. Do they wish to commend
the latter as precedent to us?
We come lastly to the great question, the
power Of Congress over the Territories
Let us first examine the two great principles
Of local or State, and central power which
have kept up continual struggle for the
mastery since the first league between some
Of the early colonies. Under our present
Constitution the struggle was typitied as a
contest between Republicans and Federal
lists, strict and liberal constructionists.-
Since then between Democrats and Wings.
The same principle is involved here as was
in the famous Bank ,oar under old Hickory
AS to the territories, the latetudinarian doc
trine is well stated in the Rep. Platform,
adopted at Pa, July II, 1855, which asserts
exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Gov
ernment That the Constitution confers
upon Congress sovereign power over the
territories of the United States for their
government, and denies the authority Of
Congress, of q territorial legislature, or of