Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-09-12
fFrom the New York Trinpne !
Attitude OF the Republicans tot the
bred Scott DenIsIo,,.

|
In 1903, and again in I7o4t the British
Court of Kings Bench (Ghtef . tistice
t5Holt) pronounced the correct and right
Eeous decision that there stis no such thine
as slave in the laws of England.n Yet
I'm l729 the Attorney General (Yorke) and
Solicitor General of the Grown gave a
written opinion that negroes, legally en-
shaved elsewhere, might be held as sIavas
IN England; and in IT40 Yorke, (now Lord
Hardwicke,l Sitting as Judge, pronounced
this doctrine from the Bench. But that
did not prevent Lord Mansfield, in the IA
nous Somerset case, twenty-five years la
ter, from overruling Lord Hardwickc's de-
clslon, and declaring from the Bench. thai
tine state of slavery is Of such nature
that 1t is incapable of being introduced on
any reasons, moral or political, but only
oy positive law. which preserves its force
.ohs after the reasons, occasion, and time
LtSelf' whence ittwas created, are erased
from the memory. 1t is so OdioUs that
nothing can be c,permitted to support it but
positive law" And he, thercnDon, vcry
reluctantly, pronounced the decision in
favor of the jamaica slave Somerset
which has baniSheI slavery ever Since
from Great Britain, and stands to-day an
nnqucstioned exposition of the laws of
England. We see here that Courts, even
the highest, confess their own faIlibili:v.
and amend their own errors: shall we be
less ready to overrule judicial dicta in
obedience to the clear requirements of
Eternal Right?
Our attitude toward the bred Scott de-
cision is essentially that of the Rcpnbli-
cans of 1899 toward the Sedition Law,
after the Supreme Court had affirmed it's
validity. They did not conspire to rest
the Court and the laws ministers; they
resolved to repeal the law; and they did it.
so with the Democrats of later day in
thelr persistent opposition to a United
states Bank as unconstitutional, though
the supreme Court had adjudgcd it other
The people of the United States, acting
through the ballot box, are the ultimate
tribunal. They make and modify Lcgsla-
lures, laws, constitutions, courts. While,
then, we render such obedience to the Su
Is tt OF ".s5rity Gs' Ty
or actual power to foreclosc the action of
the People on questions essentially DO
lItlcal, or pertaining to the National poll
cy or distribution and use of power
What the Court bids us do or eniolns us
from doing MS subjects of the State, we
must heed; but as voters, as ultimate law
makers, we are beyond and above its
power.
But that Court has never yet underta-
ken to adjudge that we may not do our
best to elect q President and Vice Presi-
dent who will appoint Governors and
Judges, Indian Agents, Land Officers, ETC.,
for the Territories, whose official influence
will be exerted on the side of Free Labor
and against Slavery Extension. This is
not forbidden, even by Taney; this is Con
stitutional, Dred Scott notwithstanding;
this ne know Abraham Lincoln will do,
and this Stephen a. Douglas tells us he
will not do. lie says he cares not wher'n-
er Slavery does or does not go into Ter
ritory, nor whether it be ''votcd up or vo-
ted down" by the People thereof. We do
care; and we want President who cares
also. And such (without fear of being
enjoned by Chief Justice Taney) we ex-
pect to secure in the election of Abraham
Lincoln.