Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-09-03

The want OF jurisdiction will be plain and palpsble
In the bred Scott case, the Court evidently had
jurisdiction. But Its exercise was against slave
holding interest, and in order to GUST themselves
of Jurisdiction, the judges rausacked Heaven
Earth. and He'll. for arguments, which resulted in
little outside the Court and the Democratic party
except to show the depths to which they descended,
to find their law and their authority.
But 1t was not enough to withhold justice from
bred Scott. Insult must DO added to injury. II
was not enough to say he was not a ~"citizeD" be-
cause he was a negro. So it charges that bred is
mot a citizen because he il a negro Of african de-
scenf!' The court take up this note and harp
lJud and long upon IL, as though a man might be
some sort of a negro, not of AFRICAN descen.".-
But If he must be of AFRICAN d%escnt," il a negro;
why twit him about it on the Record But the
animas Ju,andi was not yet exhausted, for the
pleader, who seems to understand we'll the inter
est and the prejadices of the judges, who were to
poss on his plea, proceeds to cast into the teeth Of
poor bred, the misfortunes, the woes, and the
wrongs, inflicted on his ancestors. 1t alleges that
Dred's ancestors we're of pure African blood, and
we're brought into this country, and sold as negro
slaves. What a plea Is there any justice to
be reached through it2 Is bred Soft to be turred
out Of court because his father and mother were
kidnapped, torn from their kindred, friends, and
sold into slavery by, perhaps, the ancestors Of
these very judges, who were asked to make these
wrongs the reason, and the law for Withholding
Justice from bred? Was it against the law for
Dred's ancestors to be born in African If so,
where is the law Was it constitutional, statu-
49, - N
IA page OF our correspondents NJ. S. appears to
be missing, which fact we did not discover until
too late to write to him for it.--Edaor.
have very little reverence for great names.-
Blackstone's ''principles", we're generally right.
His eliminations were frequently wrong, as:where
he attempted to show that the practice of the law
was the perfection of human reason. In this. he
was no more fortunate than the lawyers and judg-
es of the present day, when they attempt the same
thing. The glorious uncertainty Of the law" is
known of all men and if this is the perfection Of
human reason, it may be seen written in living
letters of 1~Iell-fre, in every sentence of the bred
Scott decision.
We must recur to Fundamental principles'-
They will teach us that a statute which commands
what is wrong, and prohibits what is right, is nc
law, and never can be. God himself can no more
make it so, than he can reconcile slavery and free.
dom and if it is beyond the power of the Almighty
is it within that of Douglas, Buchanan and Web.
ster? But l have not the time nor the disposition
to urge the argument, out "being a sort of a hick-
DRY disciple Of Blackstone" / prefer defending
myself with bis own words, as uttered by him
when his commentaries were assailej 'If my
principles are wrong. and my arguments uDwar-
rantable, no apology from myself can make them
right il founded in truth, no censure from others
can make them wrong.
Yours, JAS. L. GAGE.