The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1860-01-26

NOW, gea1cmT1s tACsS III
rnaliy put forth. 1t Is not for me 10 question
the motives Of the man " no makes them, but
take the allegations as | find them. and
shall attempt to answer them in detail,
First, of all, / appeal TO The country and
history, standing here upon eur recorded ae-
uon, and the integrity o, our previous char
acter, l plead not guilty of the charges; not
guilty every count, except one, and 10 thai
plead guilty.
NEGRO EQUALITY SET AT REST.
First. we not guilty of the purpose 'to
introduce the doctrine of negro equality into
American politics, ana TO make il the ground
OF positive legislation. hostile TO the Southern
States" Mark, the crime is here that We
have been guilty OF introducing" Now it
is well known, SO far as common rumor goes
we cannot always Judge Of the motives oil
men-that the bred Scott case was gotten
up by agreement, in advance of legislation,
but subsequent 10 the declaration of the pow
er of the Democratic party, to take possess
ion of Kansas. We did no; want any such
subject introduced into politics. Why ,
Because there was already oiium enough at
tached to as being the defender Of the
rights OF negro against the white man. We
were called already NEGRO lovers and it
was not to our interest to get up an issue OF
{
case was made, as is reported in Howards
Reports. The case came irto the Supreme
Court of the United States from the e. s.
( District Court OF Missouri, and although am
a follower of the plow and although he has
perhaps studied law all his life, l declare that
beriah Magotfn does not know anything
about the case; there is not a common Young
lawyer that is not better posted up in this
matter. Gov. Magofhu does not profess 10
know any thin about it-that honorable and
high toned gentleman has never made it
his study-any man can see that who reads
+ his inaugural address. John c. Brecken-
ridge does not understand it, or he is a great
hypocri'e. He is ignorant of the question
al issue. or he is hypoerite and intended
determinediy to deceive the people of the
United States but of course In consequence
of the respect have TO. him, l believe that
he is utterly Ignorant of the questions at IS
sue. in the case. | think | can present them
SO that man of the commonest understand
ing comprehend them.
1 will state the substance of the thing. 1t
was suit brought by aman OF color, call
ed bred Scott first | believe, in the State
Courts of Missouri, where it was decided
that Scott was free, then going up, | think
to The Supreme Court of Missouri, where the
decision reversed and sent back. Ii was
taken TO the Circuit Court; the pleadings
were made to this extent, plea OF abatement
i--Dred Scott bringing an action declaring
that Vi TT arms, one Sandlord had assaulted
him. as also Harriet Scott, his wife. and chill
dren. 10 this, Sandford, who is also upon
the record and admitted to be | know not if
in reality, citizen of New York, pleaded in
abatement, that Dled Scott and his wife aud
children were his slaves, and that being
81, H., Ill A
in the pleadings, that he was the descendant
of African slaves, man of color. negro.
and therefore he could not be a citizen of the
United States and Sandiord called upon
the Court to throw the case out of Court
tL-. .I-y L~I j..i~d:e..e., I'D .LA. he
(Sandford) should hold as master, bred
Scott.
So far as the bred Scott decision became a
taw of the United States. it is simply thus
HAT alter the case was twice argued in the
Supreme Court of the United States, a ma
lorlty standing seven 10 two of the Justices,
decided that man of African blood. de-
scended from parents once slaves, could not
be citizens of the United States, and there
fore could not sue Ill the Courts of the Uni
ted States, and therefore the Court having
no jurisdiction, it was returned with instruc.
tons TO sustain the Circuit Court. That is
what they decided. Now | desire to state.
that in my humble judgment. bred Scott was
not the slave of Sandtord, and became a 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 a
right to be relieved from this existence of vi
ct arms, and that was the opinion ofJustic-
es Mclean and Curtis, and every LAWYER
that has read the decision of the Court in
Howard Reports, that have spoken to up
on the subject, has invariably said to me that
the opinion of Justice Curtis is the most CON
elusive piece of judicial logic ever presented
in all the books of judicial decisions. | have
it at home, and l declare that in my iudg-
ment there is no proposition in Euclid more
clearly demonstrated than that. Not that
bred Scott had right to citizenship. to hold
office and vote. rights which many white
persons, as for instance women, have not,
but that he had right to the protection af-
forded by law; that being a free man, by
being carried first into a free State, and then
to the Territory coded to the United States
by France, he had Alright to sue and be sued
He never declared that Scott was entitled to
all the privileges OF citizen, but the Consti-
tuition says:
The citizens of each St4te shall be emit.
tied to all the privileges of citizen in the
several States
And If Kentucky determines that the black
man cannot hold office in the Common wealth
a black from Massachusetts cannot hold
cfiee he is but entitled to the protection OF
tie laws given for the protection of his own
race and condition.
The bred Scott decision was gotten uu
entirely BY the Democratic party, and i vas
made IN 1856, after the election OF President
Buchanan. and intended TO sustain The Kan
sas Nebraska Bill
In passing, allow to say that we make
no issue with the Supreme Court on thai sub
ject. We acknowledge the Supreme Coari
decision to be the supreme law Of the land,
and deny the allegation that we intend lie
galiy and factioasly resist the decision OF
that court. and force kind Of citizenship up-
on the country with which We have nothing
- u