Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-05-21

do in consequence ofthe judgement, viii
it remains unreverscd. lfA.man purch.
Q scs property under such Judgment,
a subsequent reversal will not aife
o his title, on the contrary. is good and efl
Q ectnal against all persons, n lnrling Il
plaintiff in error No inieriOr Court
Court of coordinate Jurisdiction can r
: gard the error or refuse any remedy in COZ
sequence ofsuch error, though apparer
on the record. And no superior Cuu
can regard it or animadvert upon it, eA
5 cept in the one appointed mode prescribe =
by the Legislative power. But judg
5 ment void for want of jurisdiction is mel
waste paper.lt is an absolute nullity and. /
so to be treated in all Courts, whether in
ferior, coordinate or superior to the Coui !
which rendered it, whenever any benefit
sought to beIderived from itby their mean. /,
Such judgement justifies nobody. NE
right can be derived from it. A man at I
quires no title to property from q purt
chase under color ofsuch u judgement !
He is trespasser in taking possession
property thus purchased, and his right 1
it may be disputed during the whole peri :
cd of the statute of limitations &
Judge Taney says that there is distinc
| tion between writ of error from the Su .
preme Court of the Union to State Cour g
and writ oferror from that court to tn
Circuit Court of the United States. In til
| first case as soon as q want of jurisdiction
becomes manifest the case Is to be stricke.
from the docket. But in case of II writ :
error to the Circuit Courts of the Unitec
States, he thinks it is the duty of the Su-
preme Court to go further, and
to examine and reverse it. Suppose
such examination shows it to be thei%
duty to affirm it. But it is incapable o
nffirmancc. Then, if it is incapable of uf-
tirmance, is it not also incapable of re-
versal. What is there to reverse 1t Is
perfectly fair to say that the appellate
power of the Supreme Court of the United
States over the Circuit Courts, is precisely
similar to the appellate power of the
Supreme Courts of the individual States
over the subordinate State Courts Now,
hazard nothing in saying that it would
be complete and triumphant answer to
an assignment of errors in the Supreme
Court of Ohio, to show that the judgment
complained of was n nullity, that tho
court below had no Jurisdiction. Where
the want of jurisdiction in the inferior tri-
bunal is nsccrtAined and manifest, as IL q
Justice of the Peace would render de-
cree OF divorce, or give judgmentfor dam
ages in an action of slandcr, or Probate
Court give judgment for the recovery of
tract of land, the Supreme Court will give
themselves no further trouble in the mat
ter. Why should they? Their jurisiic.
ton is appellate and derivative. If the
Court below has no jurisdiction, none can
be derived from it to them. Moreover
the Judgment below being nullity, |
how can they make it weaker or worse, |
or less etfectnHl than nullity? The |
absurdity is still greater when there is 81
QGGsnR9l .liSahiGty. to- maintain suit |
coverturc on the record, and also,
that she had never been appointed
by the proper Court, nor given bond or Sc,
curity as administratrix. All this would
show n disability to sue, not n whit more
complete than that of old Dred Scott; but
would the Supreme Court of Ohio think 1t
necessary to reverse any judgment whlch
she might obtain? Would any defendant
be in any danger of loss from such JudE-
ment? But we will not be technical
Judge Taney says that it is necessary to go
on and decide what he calls the merits OF
the case, for fear of "mischief and injus-
tice in some future suit" and we go along
with him. Though, after the Judge mas
banished the whole African race from the
Courts of the Union, and left them no
standing room there, his fears of future in
Justice and mischief from their suits for tree
dom, in those Courts, would seem to be rnth-
or visionary. So after turning the plaln-
tiff neck and heels out of Court, the Chief
Justice and his associates, proceeded on in
their judicial journey without his ebony
company, and they soon come to the I'M
portuut fact, that the plalnuh nad Deen
taken by his master, to Rock Island, III
the State of Illinois, and there detained
from 1884 to 1886, in defiance OF the Con-
stitution and laws of that State. The
Constitution and laws of the Union ouly
proyide for the capture and re-delivery OF
fupitiycs from labor. When master Eol-
untarily takes his slave to jurisdiction
where slavery is prohibited, right to
freedom attaches, whether the prohibition
of slavery is general or only special us OF
the person so unlawfully imported. Aud
the maxim formerly was "once freeman
always freeman and the individual dld
not lose his newly acquired right TO trec-
dom by being carried back 10 MS FORMER
place of bondage. For an illustration OF
Ff,,is nrincipIe see Hunter rs. Fulcher, first
| volume Lrigh's Reports, page l92, COnrt
of Appeals of Virginia. But the Supreme
! Conrt oyerrulcd this train of decisions
and determined that Dred Scott's importa-
tion by his master into the State OF lilI-
nois: was incffcctual to confer freedom
Now after this, what question remained
undecided? Why not stop here2 Ii I'M
portation by his master, into the soVer-
eign State of Illinois, where slavery was
prohibited, was Intellectual to confer free
dom, how, by any remote possibility, could
importation into the United States TERRI.
tory be more effectuul to confer freedomE
1 If slavery was prohibited in the Territory
by the sth section of the Act of Congress
Of March, 1920, for the admission of Mis-
souri,, it had long before been prohibited
by its Constitution and laws, in the soyer-
eign State of Illinois. If the Court had
maintained the c,.pueity of Dred Scott to
sue, if they had given him a hearing; {,
standing room in Court, and if they had
| found his importation into Illinois eftee1
. tuol to confer freedom, then they would