The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-06-08
The bred Scott Decision as We've d by
Counsel.

Hon. REvERDY JOHNSON, in a letter to
the New York DOUGLAS meeting says:
The excuse for the grossly unjust and sui
cidal warfare on Douglas and his friends,
waged by the gentlemen of the section for
whose rights he hazarded so much and so
much contributed to uphold, is that the ques-
ton of territorial power has been decided by
the Supreme court. This is asserted daily
by many, who, perhaps, never even read the
bred Scott judgment, or from their pursuits
are incompetent to pass upon it. Having
argued the case twice, as the friend of the
South and bestowed upon all the questions
it involved the most careful study could, I
state with perfect confidence, that the ques-
ton was not only not decided by the Court,
but was neither argued nor in any way pre-
sented for decision. The single inquiry in
this connection was, had Congress the pow
er to prohibit slavery in territory? When
organized into government, what the terri.
torial legislature could do was not before the
court, either directly or indirectly. main.
tanned, however, then, as think now, that
the power was with such legislature by
proposition, and it was stated as reason
against the existence of the Congressional
power that slavery would "neither be estab-
lished nor prohibited by Congress-" but that
the people of territory, "when organized
by Congress can establish or prohibit" it.
Mr.. Justice Curtiss, in his opinion, so viewed
my proposition. I certainly never supposed
that there existed in any part Of the civilized
world government where slavery existed
in which there was not somewhere the au-
thority to abolish.
Such proposition to my mind is perfect.
ly incomprehensible, and libel on the great
and good men to whom we are indebted for
our admirable political institutions. There
is not word in the opinions of either of the
Judges, even tending to prove that the
Court, or any Judge, intending to pass up
pom the question, or esteemed it before them.
They examined only the power of Congress,
the sole one presented for judgment. Infer
ences for or against the Territorial power
from the courts judgement negativing the
Congressional power may be drawn, but as
to these there are honest differences of opin~
ion. The passage in the opinion of the
Chief Justice relied upon as denying the
power, warranted no such conclusion. He
is there dealing with the express restrictions
of the Constitution on the power of the
Government. His remarks embrace every
part of the United States over which Con-
gress can act at all. His purpose is to show
that although the Territories are in some
particulars and some purposes under the
government of Congress, it is under it only
in subordination to such restrictions. He
applies what he says as we'll to the District
of Columbia as to the Territories generally.
And yet, it will scarcely be maintained, he
designed to assert that Congress, subject to
restrictions referred to, has not the power to
prohibit slavery in the District, under the
authority to exercise exclusive legislation IN
all cases whatsoever over such district"
The exercise of such power would be
rash, a0d grossly inexpedient in the existing
state of the country, but of the mere power
there can be no we'll founded doubt. 1 do
not believe that the authority OF the Terri
torial Legislature was in the mind of the
Chief Justice, certainly the question was
not before him, nor alluded to, except as an
argument against the Constitutional power.
Nor was it ever referred to, as in the case,
by any other Judge. 1t is, therefore, idle
to consider it settled. If this be so, and
those who so think, even as honest, and per-
haps as capable of forming an opinion on
the subject as gentlemen having different
view, why should it not be esteemed now an
open question? Why should the South not
continue to agree, as they did then, to abide
in good faith, by the words of that act? Of
their meaning it is impossible to doubt. So
think thousands and thousands of Southern
men, so devoted to the rights of their sec.
tions as any of their brethren, bound to it
by the common ties Of country, and nativity,
and conviction.