The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-07-18
black r,p-t lic'ns will ,le.'t their man, in which
ev mt it will be too late for tie adoption Of any
S, therp ultra movem Its to nn,slify the Jesuit

ev mt it will be too late for To- adoption OF any
S, ''heIp ultra movem Its to nn,aify the Jesuit
The DnRD SC01T DECISION RHvIEwEn-Av..ry
important legal question has lately arisen in
Virginia affecting tie principles laid down In
The Dred Scott decision as to the status of slaves
A slave woman answering to the name of Amy
was tried and convicted at the last May term of
the United States Circuit Court at Richmond for
stealing a letter from the Post Office. Her con-
viction was had under the act Of Congress Of
March 3, 1928, which provides for the punish
ment of ofIt noes against the Post Office by fine
and imprisonm The sentence of Amy was
two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. A
motion for new trial was made and argued be-
fore Chief Justice Taney-the grounds taken
there, as well as on the original trial being that
under the bred Scott decision slaves were
pronounced to be property, not persons; that
it was only in the former sense that they
were ct all recognized in the consultation
of the United States ; that the act of 1928 could
have had no reference to slaves, because they
had no liberty of which to be deprived, no pro-
pcrty from which to pay fines; and that if it
were to be extended to slaves, then that other
clause of the constitution was also applicable to
them, which declares that trials of all kinds ex-
cept in cases of impeachment shall be by jury
in other words, by a jury Of ones peers. But
Judge fancy overruled all these pleas, and de-
MED the motion for new trial.
Our Richmond correspondence, which we
print elsewhere, shows that this case has ex-
cited a great deal Of interest in legal circles
there, and that the general opinion is that this
decision of Judge Taneys conflicts with that in
the Dred Scott case. There does certainly appear
to be q contradiction in terms between the two
cases; for while in the latter this slave is held to
be criminally responsible as civil person, it is
declared in the former that as regards slaves
there is no other power found in the constitution
save to treat them as property and to protect it.
1t will require considerable amount of meta
physical argument to reconcile these apparently
conflicting decisions; and we presume another
case will have to be got up to give the Supreme
Court an opportunity of doing 80.
Outside of this seeming conflict between the
two decisions, there are other minor points in
volved in this prosecution Of slave by the fede-
raj government. For instance, there is no
guarantee to the owner that after the term of
Imprisonment expires the slave will be returned
to him. The marshal is not directed to do 80.
He has nothing to do when the sentence expires
but to throw open the prison doors and let
the slave go free; and if the punishment
were to be inflicted, not at Richmond but at
Washington, the owner might have some difficulty
in recovering her. Then again, is the owner to
receive no compensation for the loss of his slave?
The federal laws make no such provision, though
in many instances the State laws do. All these
dificulies-say those who hold that Judge Ia.
ney's decision is wroDg-might be obviated if
the slave were tried under the State laws for lar
ceny of the letter, and sentenced to be well
whipped. The case will, it is said, be brought
before the attention of Congress, and there we
presume the whole merits of the controversy
will be opened up. In the meantime the cor.
respondence which we publish will enable our
readers to understand thoroughly the subject.