Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-06-04
[For the Intclligencerl
SECTIONAL STRIFE--No. 13,
TIE DRIED SCOTT DECISION

1 ID.
TIE DRIED SCOTT DECISION.
KesSrs. EditOrS:-In my animadversions
upon this case, my first impression was to
trouble your readers with very few author
itics, knowing that such discussions are
by some considered dry and unintcresting.
But upon second thoughts 1 have resolved
to give the authorities upon which my
opinions are founded, and then let your
readers judge for themselves; only asking
them to remember the postulate already
laid down, that the power of the Su-
premc Court in such cases, is APP
pellate and derivativc, that if the Cir
cult Court has no jurisdiction of q case,
the Supreme Court has none, except to
ascertain the fact of want of jurisdiction,
and render it authentic by the proper GER
tilicate. Whether this certificate is to
contain the word reDersc, or not, is mere
matter of verbiagc ~ wise and earnest
man can seldom find time to enter into
verbal disputes. If Dred Scott had no
capacity to maintain IL suit i'll the Circuit
Court, how could lie maintain one in the
Supreme Court? Both courts were equal
ly without n party, 'cithoWt Il PiGintV. If
the doings of one were extra judicial, the
doings OF the other were equally so. The
Circuit Court had as much right TO wander
off into theoretical questions as to what
ought to he decided, ii they had compe-
tent parties, as the Supreme Court. When
the absence of 81 competent plaintiff is
asccrtained, both Courts must stop short.
If they conform to the known and estab-
lished laws of the land they cannot pro-
cced another step. In Elliott VS.. PeirSol,
First Peters $40, the Supreme Court of the
United States say, "where court has
! jurisdiction it has right to dccid" cverS
question which occurs in the cause; and
whether its decision be correct or other
wise, its Judgment until reversed. is re-
garded as binding in every other court
But if it act without authority, its judg-
ments and orders are regarded as nulIitieS
THEY ARE NOT vOIDABLE HUT SIMPLY VOID !:
and form no bar to a recovery sought, even
prior to reversal in opposition to them.
They constitute no justification; and all
persons concerned in executing such
judgments or sentences, are considered in
law as trespassers." In the Gaze of Thomp-
son VS.. Tolmte, Second Peters, 1863, the
same court. is speaking of the distinction
between judicial proceedings, merely void
for want of Jurisdiction or erroneous and
irregular only, they say, "Thc general
and well settled rule of law in such cases
is that when the proceedings arc colIater-
ally drawn i'll question and it appears
. OF
matter was within the jurisdiction of the
Court, they are voidabIe only. The errors
and irregularities if any exist, are to be
corrected by some direct proceeding either
before the same court to set them aside, or
in an appellute court. If there is IL total
want of jurisdiction, the proceedings are
void and IL mere nullity, and confer no
right, and afford no justification, and
may be rejected, wlen coil"tcraily y
drawn in question. When judgment is
rendered without jurisdiction, amy court,
high or low, is competent to treat it MS Il
nullity In Voorhees, against the Bank of
the United States, 10th Peters, 474, and
the following pages, the Supreme Court is
speaking of judgments, after the Statutory
time for bringing writS of error is run out.
They say, ''If the principle once prevails
that any proceeding of Il court of cOmpc-
tent jurisdiction can be declared nulllty
hy any court after writ of error or APP
peal is barred by limitation, every county
court or Justice of the peace i'll the Union,
may exercise the same right, from which
our own judgments or process would not
be exempted. The only difference i'll this
respect between this and the other court
is, that no court can revise our proceed
Eings: but that difference disappears, after
I the time prescribed for writ of error or
appcal to revise those of an inferior court
Of the United States, or of any State; they
stand on the sumo footing in law. The
errors of the Court do not impair their va
lidity; binding until reversed, any objection
TO their full effect, must go to the authors
ty under which they have been conducted.
If not warranted by the constitution or
law of the land, ous most solemn proceed
ings can confer no right, which is denied
to any judicial act under color OF law,
which can be properly deemed to have
been done cOrGm non J"d'ce; that Is by
persons assuming the Judicial functions
in the given case, without lawful "nthorl-
ty The time which separates error in
Judgment from the usurpUtion of power, is
very definite, and is precisely that which
denotes the cases where Il Judgment or de-
cree is reversible only by an appellate
court, or may be declared nullity collat-
erally, when it is offered in evidence con-
corning the matter adjudicated, or PurPort-
ling to have been so. IN THE ONE CASE 1T
is a RECORD IMPoBTISG ABSOLUTE Verify /
IN THE OTHER MERE WASTE PAPER. THERE
CAN DE no MIDDLE CHARACTER ASSIGNED TO
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE IRREvEh-
slBLE FOR ERROR"
When the Supreme Court of the United
States thus declares that supposed Judg-
mcnt is an absolute nullity, in their own
Language. f'mere waste paper" the form OF
their certificate to that effect is matter OF
Indifference. The clerk often adopts the
phrase, that the Judgment is reversed
This is mere matter of form ana practlce'
No marshal would dare to carry into exc
cution a Judgment of-a Circuit Conrt, after
IT had been declared nullity by tile SUI