The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1860-02-23
NO. T.

up, think to the Supreme Court of Mis-
souri,, where the decision was reversed
and cent tack. 1t was taken to the Cir
cult Court; the pleadiDgs were made to
this extent, that plea of abatement was
made-Dred Scott bringing an action de-
claring that, ~ ct arn11S, one Sanford had
assaulted him, as also Harriet Scott bis
wife, and children. To this, Sanford,
who is also upon the record, aud admitted
to be, know not If in reality, citizen
Of New York. pleaded, iD abatement, that
Dred Scott and bis wife and children were
his slaves. and that being slaves. or rath-
er, 20 use the language as used in the
pleadings, that he was the descendant of
African slaves. a man of color, a negro,
and therefore be could uot be citizen
of the United States; and Sanford called
upon the Court to throw the case out of
Court, that they had DO jurisdiesion, and
thpt he (Sanford) should hold, as master,
Dred Scott.
So far a the Drec Scott decision be-
cane Law of the United States, it 10 sim
ply thus that after the case was twice ar
gued in the Supre nc Court of the United
States, a majority, standing seven to two,
of the Justices, decided that a nan of
African blood, descended from parents
once slaves, could not be citizens Of the
United States, aud therefore the Court
having no jurisdiction. it was returned,
with instructions to sustain the Circuit
Court. That is what they decided. Now
| desire to state. that, in 10y humble judg-
Dent, Dred Scott was not the slave of
Sanford, and being free man and man
of color, according to the Constitution Of
the United States when it was made, he
had right to sue, and had right to be
relieved from this existence Of "a CT arms,
and that was the opinion OF Justices Me-
Lean and Curtis, and every lawyer that
has read the decision of the Coart in How
ard s Reports, that have spoken to upon
the subject, has invariably said to me
that the opinion of Justice Curtis is the
most conclusive piece of Judicial logic ev-
or presented in all tbe books of judicial
decisions. have it at home, and de-
clare that in ny judgment there is no
proposition in Euclid more clearly dem
ou.trateJ than that Not that Dred Scott
had right to citizenship, to hold ofice
and vote rights which Laany white per-
sons, as for instance women, have not
but that be had right to the protection
afforded by Law; that being free man,
By being carried first into free State
aud then to the Territory ceded to tho
United States BY France, be had right
to sue and be sued. He never declared
that Scott was entitled to ell the priSile-
ges Of a citizen, but the Constitution says:
The citizens Of each State shall te en-
titled to sill privileges and iumspities of
citizens in the seseral States.
And if Kentucky determines that the
black man caDUot hold Office in the Com
monwealth, a black man coming from
Massachusetts, cannot hold Office; he is but
eDtitlcd d to the protection of the laws given
for the protection of his own rscs and SOD
6tiou.
The Dred Scott decieion was gotten up
entirely By the Democratic party. and it
was made in 1856, after the election of
President Buchanan, and intended to sus-
tain the Kansas Nebraska Bill
In passing, allow NE to say that we
make no issue with the Supreme Court on
that subject. We acknowledge the Su-
preme Court decision to be the supreme
Law of the land, and deny the allegation
that We intend illegally and faetiously to
resist the decision of that Court, and force
kind Of citizenship upon the country
with which we have nothing to do. So
far then for the Dred Scott decision
(TO BE CONTINUED.)