The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-07-13
EXTERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF OPPRESSION
OFFICE IN HooPER's BRICK
BDDEFoRD, ME-, FRIDAY

SOurt us littlo III UoImOuy With sho ''S'''
and doctrines OF the modern Democracy o.
are those I have quoted from Mr.. Jefferson
In his message vetoing the bill for re-charter
ing the Bank Of the United States, he said
"Thc opinion Of the judges has no more au
thority over Congress than the opinion OF Con
gress over the judges; and, on that point, th'
President is independent of both. The authori
~ OF the Supreme Court must not, therefore
be permitted to control the Congress or the IL
ecutive when acting in their legislative capaci
ties, but to have only such influence IS the fore'
Of their reasoning may deserve"
It is evident that tho sage of Monticello
and the hero of the Hermitage, could the,
return TO Garth, would find no seats reserye(
for them at any Democratic banquet.
The Republicans of to-day stand with Mr.
Jefferson and the old Republican party OF
this question, and not with the oligarchy fol
whose uses the so-called Democratic organi
nation is kept up.
The Democratic party having made wha,
they are pleased to call the Dred Scott dc.
csion the main plank Of their platform,
propose to show what that decision is, what
Il implies, and what Is Its basis or founda'
ton.
The facts in this case were as follows.
read from the report:
"In the year 1894, the plaintiff, Dred Scott
was negro slave belonging to DR.. Emerson,
who was a surgeon in the army Of the United
States. In that year, 1884, said DR.. Emerson
took the plaintiff from the State Of Missouri to
the military post ut Rock Island, In the STATE
of Illinois, and held him there as q slave, until
the month Of April or May, 1896. Atthe time
last mentioned, said DR.. Emerson removed the
plaintiff from said military post Mt Rock Island
to the military post ut Fort Smelling, situate on
the west bank OF the Mississippi river, in the
Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired
by the United States Of France, and situate
north of the latitude Of go 3O' north Of the
State of Missouri; said DR.. Emerson held the
plaintiff in slavery ut Fort Smelling, from the
said last mentioned date until the year 1885,
"In the year 1888, said DR.. Emer-
son removed the plaintiff from said Fort Smell.
ing to the State Of Missouri, where he has ever
since resided"
In the year 1888, DR.. Epcrson sold the
plaintiff to the defendant, Sanford,
The defendant pleaded in abatement to
the jurisdiction of the court, that the plain.
tiir was not citizen of the State of Missouri,
because he was negro Of African descent,
and his ancestors were Of pure African blood,
and were brought into this country and sold
as negro slaves. ..
The Court sustained the plea in abatement
and decided that, conceding the plaintiff to
be freeman, he was not. under the Consti-
tuition, q citizen of the State of Missouri or
of the United States, for the reason that he
was negro Of African descent, and that his
ancestors were Of pure African blood, and
brought to this country and sold as slaves
This adjudication Of course terminated the
case, and Dred Scott was turned out Of court.
But after the court had thus made an end
of the suit, and declared that there were no
parties before them, the slavcholding majori.
ty proceeded 10 inquire whether in point OF
fact the plaintiff was free man and this
brought them 10 consideration Of the ques.
ton of the validity and constitutionality Of
the Missouri compromise restriction, and
their opinion, which for convenience sake
shall hereafter speak of Us q decision, al.
though it was not q decision in any proper
or legal sense, was, that this restriction was
unconstitutional and void, and that Drcd
Scott remained slave. Their opinion was
clear and explicit, that neither Congress nor
the people Of q territory had authority under
the Constitution to legislate tor the exclu-
sion of slavery from any of the Territories of
the United States. by tho Constitution it.
self, they argued, slaves were recognized aud
known as property "the right Of property
in slaves" they said, was "distinctly and
expressly affirmed" in that instrument, and
the only authority conferred upon Congress
was "ihe po,cer coupled ,cih the duty Of.
and protecting the opner in hi'
rights"
These judges readily admitted that, but
for the constitutional sanction Of slavery, 1t
would be fully competent for Congress to
legislate for its regulation or prohibition IN
the Territories. They stated that the court
had decided in previous case that the power
Of Congress to govern the territories was
"unquestionable," and added, Gin this We
entirely concur, and nothing will be found
in this opinion to the contrary" thus de-
stroying, root and branch, the who doc
trne OF popular or squatter sovereignty
But, inasmuch as the Constitution han taken
hold Of slaves as property, and thrown its
protection and guarantees around that spe-
cics of property, II results, they maintained,
that Congress, which is itself the creature Of
the Constitution, cannot have power to de.
stroy or impair that which the Constitution
aiIirms and protects. Now, If 1t be true
that slaves are property under the Constita.
ton of the United States, which is the So
preme law that this instrument, which gov.
erns and controls, in respect to all questions
upon which II speaks. within oil the States,
us well as Territories, attaches to partic,l
lar class of human beings the character and
imprints upon them the stamp Of property,
and coniers upon Congress "the power coup
led with the duty of protecting this proper.
ty," for the reason that II is property by O
constitutional recognition, ii will be difficut
to resist the conclusion to which these jude-
es have arrived; nay, it will be impossible.
to resist it, or that other conclusion to which
this decision reaches, viz: THAT THIS
KIND OF PROPERTY MAY BE TAKEN,
HELD, USED, BOUGHT AND SOLD, IN
EACH AND ALL OF THE STATES OF
THE UNION. This result, inevitable from
the Dred Scott decision. Is what will be ju-
dlcially asserted whenever the time shall
come, and come IL will IL the Democratic
party remains in power but few years
more, for raising the whenever,
in the opinion Of those who control the court,
the time is ripe for such decision-or, In
other words, whenever the oligarchy shall
believe that the Northern people will sub
nit to it, and consent that every State in the
Union shall be slave State. The real and
oyershadowing question which by this decis-
ion is presented to the country is not wheth.
er freedom Is national but is whether II has
even section where II may dwell; It is
whether slavery Is not national and univer-
sal.
1t is clear that whatsoever Is property by
the highest law Of the land is entitled to the
rights, immunities, and projections Of prop
crty, wherever that highest law PREVAILS
The Constitution Of the United States Is ID
iorco in every State Of the Union, and all
laws Of Congress, all laws Of States, and all
State Constitutions, which are in conflict
with its provisions are imperative and void.
If slave Is property BY or under the author