Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1860-03-16

| llcVcS tDat inc iTAncfS OF the Constitution
would have consented to provision that
deprived the States utterly Of the power to
protect their own citizens9 No Sir But
it is frequently said that the Constitution
would not have been framed if this had not
been provided for. But so far from this be-
ing the case, 1t was mere after-thought.--
The Constitution was formed in all its i'm
poriant particulars before any man thought
of this provision, and it was placed there
with no idea that q State should surrender
any power TO protect her own citizens, If
that Convention was jealous Of any one
thing more than another, it was of the
rights of the States, and they batlled inch
by inch, against any principle that looked
to the surrender of any State power. They
never intended to give any power to any
person to claim anybody they chose. 1t
was only to claim the fugitive from labor,
and when that has been ascertained no
State has resisted the law. But the Sena-
tor says that Ohio among the rest, has com
mitted kind of perjury in passing Person
al Liberty bills. Mr.. Wade referred TO the
law of Ohio, to prevent slaveholding, and
Nothing in the preceding section Of this act shall ap.
ply to any act done by under the authority
the Constitution of the United States Of any law of the
United States made in pursuance thereof
And, continued Mr.. W., now, ask the
Senator if he were upon the bench, and if
fugitive was brought before him under
this law, if he would have any difficulty in
surreudering him9 Let me say to you who
hold the doctrine of State Rights, you en-
danger the liberty of your own States when
you contend against the power of the
States to pass laws protecting their own
citizens. No asperty of language, no
frowning countenanco nordenunciation shall
ever induce Ohio to forget what is due to
her sovereignty and to the protection of her
own citizens-never, never, Sir And she
takes no prouder stand upon this subject
than hope in God every other State in
this Union takes. Then the Senator was
wrong and uncandid to say our constituents
were perjured, when they have taken every
precaution to protect the citizens of States
holding species of property which we ut
terly repudiate. Ohio is never forgetful of
her rights. She sends no Senators here to
denounce the sovereignties of other States.
But when her rights are assaied, her en-
bassadors would be unfaithful to their trust
if they did not hurl back any such imputa-
ton. The third count of this indictment
was that we intended to prohibit and limit
slavery in the vast Territories of the United
States. Sir, that charge l confess is true.
We do intend it, Sir. If | understand the
objects and purposes of the Republican par
ty, it was brought into power on this very
subject. When the general government
had broken all the pledges to freedom in
our Territories, the Republican party rose
to oppose this unconstitutional aggression
| Had there been no violation of the Missou-
ri Compromise, very probable there would
have been no Republican party here. We
intend to defend the Territories of thiscoun
try against the pollution of Slavery. There
we stand, and there is our platform, and
there we shall stand forever. But the SEN
ator claims tho right to carry slaves into
the Territories because the decision of
the Court gives him that right. Now
no man has more respect for the decisions
of the Courts when within their proper iu-
dical limits than have, and no one knows
better how essential it is that these should
be lived up to. But just as much as | re-
we're an honest Court, keeping within its iu-
risdiction and restraining itself from any
political connection, so, Sir, in exact proper
ton do abhor and scout one from the cor
rupt Judge who, for any purposes, will reach
over the case before him and endeavor to
advance political cause by any decisions
he may pretend to make. The moment
the court transcends his authority for the
purpose of affecting any political cause, its
decision is impertinent, and, with the courts
of Georgia, | say hold it in bitter CON
tempt, and if there ever was a decision on
Gods earth that would warrant any private
man or Senator saying: 81 hold it in con-
tempt" it is that Dred Scott decision.-
What was the case? An old negro prose-
cutes for his liberty in the Federal courts.
Old Dred Scott sued for his freedom, and
the plea was put in that being the descend
ant of Africans he could not sue in that
court. The court decided that man may
be so monstrous low that he cannot sue for
his life, and believe this is the first nation
on Gods earth that ever put being in hu-
man form upon so low level as that. But
the majority of the court said that Dred
Scott being a negro, descendant of Afri-
can ancestors, who having been slaves he
could not maintain a suit in that court be-
cause he was not citizen. l ask if that
was not the end of that case. Then, in the
name of God Judge Taney, why did you
retain it any longerl 1t was settled upon
every principle of adjudication, and nocourt
has held to it more solemnly than that one.
All, then, the Court may say beyond the
case was mere talk, and might just as well
have been uttered in bar-room as in a
court. The majority of that Court are in
terested in that decision, and, strange as it
may appear those who complain of North
ern aggression have had majority of that
court on their side. l will not say that
this is the reason why the decisions are
magniied to such importance. The very
men of the very party who, few years
ago, held these decisions of no effect, have
turned around of late and have found vir-
tue in that court which can ride triumph
antly over every other part of this Govern
meDt. Such a heresy, if persisted in, can
result in nothing but consolidated despot-
ism. And il the dicta or talk Of such a