The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1859-07-12
The Dred Scott Decision Oy.rruJct

the Post Office Her master, in defence.
set up the Dred Scott decision, in which a
slave is held to be property, without Volt
ton or personal responsibility. The court.
however. ovcrrulcd this plea and verdict
Of guilty was rendered against the 'chattcl. -
As 1t was an offence against the Federal
Government. the ease was appealed to the
l. ;. Supreme Court, and argued before
whom, think ye'l Chief Justice TANEY.
We now quote from Washington CORES.
pondent OF the New York C0urier ami
Enquirer.
In arguing the motion before this Illus
trious functlonary, the counsel for the slave 5
master, dld not trouble himself bv any ap.
pcals to common sense, nor to morality, nor
to law as understood and administered from
time immemorial, but he contended that as
the Supreme Court of the Uuitcd States
had said slaves were things, they could not
be treated nor considered in aug other ca
pacity. As things they could have no legal
rights nor responsibilities They could rot
be imprisoned nor be fined, for they could
not be deprived Of liberty which they had
not, nor OF money or property which it was
legally impossible for them to possess
Many subordinate point, were made. all
turning, however. upon the pivot Of the
new dogma, that slaves are purely property
and not persons nor human beings
Judge fancy Overruled the motion with
out the slightest hesitation. and in doing 50
treated his own and the Courts opinion in
the bred Scott case with inexpressble con-
tempt and disrespect He pronounced
slaves to be persons Il is astonishing how
his eyes were opened to the tangible eyi.
denccs Of things which he not only denied
in SCOTS case, but Of which he then affirm
Ell the exact contrary to exist He now
says that the Constitution, the laws Of Con
grcss and State papers all speak Of Slaves
as persons But in the Dred Scott opinion,
referring to the Constitution and slavery, he
said:
The only two provisions which point to
them and include them, (meanng Slaves, J
treat them as property, and make it the
duty Of the government to protect 1t; no
other power in relation to this race is found
in the Constitution and as it is govern.
ment of special delegated powers, 10 au-
,hority beyond these two provisions can be
cons,ituiionally exercised. The Govern
mcnt Of the United States has no right TO
interfere for any other purpose but OF pro
tec,ins the rights of the owner, leaving it
altogether with the several States to deal
with this race, whether emancipated or not,
es each State may think justice, humanity,
and the interests and safety of society may
require
Only two years ago Judge Taney as the
moutbpiece Of a majority of the Supreme
Court, affirmed that the General Govern
ment had 10 power and no right to do any
act relative to 4 slave except to protect the
owners property in it. He knew that il
the nature of things s0ine power must exist
to treat the slave rs a man, as n creature
endowed by God with human faculties, bu
that power must be looked for elsewhere
1t was to be found In the states. rs ;
matter Of fact, whether important or not
the Courts assertion that only two proTi
sions Of the Constitution point to and Iii
clude slaves, is palpable niIsstatemcnt
J There are FIVE such provisions. 1t is efuali
incorrect to allegc that these provisions
whether two, as the Chief Justice asserts
or five, as is the fact, treat slaves a pre-
,, perty. The Constitution nowhere treat
. slaves as property at all. They may be re
claimed when escaped from bondage, br
they are to be demanded not as ta!ngs {
strayed beasts, but as fugitive servants; an
the same provision applied at that tim
equally to redemptioners who were whit
servants for terms of years, and applies no
to white apprentices. So in regard to ii
r agreement not to prohibit within twent
years the migration or smPort0tto"
such persons as the States shall see prop
to admit. The compact recognized no pr
s perty in the persons to bc imported M
more than in those who might emlsrate
m the United States. Ii had noihing to {
"a with their condition, but the statesmen vi
Q, made it were careful not to recognize eve
the condition Of slavery, much less the rig
IS Of property in man, by excluding the wo
"slave," and adhering here, as cvcrywhe
I'd else, to the designation person. he p'
'e sons imported might and would lee MAJ
= slaves by the laws Of Georgia and Sou
Carolina, but in Pennsylvania and Mas
chuset,s they would he frcemen And
the Constitution no recognition OF the loo
, law of either of these States was made, a
|. the persons we're not contemplated as eth
slaves or property
.G 1t is no perversion or cNasseratlon
language to say, that in Amy case Jud
Taney treated the property dogma OF
Scott case with contempt and defiance.
the latter he declared that the Federal G'
ernment had no jurisdiction over, and col
es have no relation with slaves, except as PR
ms ertv. In dealing with the ma'l-piliel
tie Amy, he decided that the nlted Sia
IA could punish her as criminal, could
~ prison her as q woman, and must ackno'
edge her as a rational being, responsible
law. Here he Hou;s aud condemns hi
self and he sustains his virtuoGS, learn
OF. and eminent colleague, Justice heLc
ge who, referring to the atrocious sentime
- which deformed the opinion of the MAJOR
,ys in SCOTS case, placed on record these me
u.s. orable words: