Daily Democrat and news. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1859-1864, 1860-07-26
state Democratic Eek. Committee.
Rcvcrdy johnson on the bred Scott De-
CislOn.

Rcvcrdy johnson on the bred Scott De-
CislOn.
IT is wise and just rule which re-
quircs that "upon questions involving
the inherent rights of man, all laws
shall be strictly construed, and when
ever ambiguity exists, or doubts arise,
the decision shall be on the side Of nat
ural right and liberty"
Nov it is claimed that the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the eel
ebfated bred Scott case, has decided
that the citizens Of an organized Terri
tory, acting through their Legislature,
caunot exclude the institution Of slave
ry. How it can be possible to draw
from the opinion of the Court con-
cluson SO repugnant to the fundamental
principles of human freedom, we are
entirely at . less to conceive. That
there is ambiguity in the language of the
decision, and that grave doubts arise
upon it, as to this subject, is to be found
in the fact that some of the ablest legal
minds which this or any other country
has ever produced, deny that any such
a conclusion can be drawn from the
opinion, by the most distant implication.
1t is, then, the imperative duty Of every
individual to at least hesitate, before he
seeks, under the authority of the high
est tribunal known to our laws, to de-
prvc Of the right of seli-government,
the energetic pioneer, who, amid all the
hazard of a frontier life, strives to wiring
from the virgin soil an honest, though
precarious livelihood; a right, in the
maintenance Of which the best blood Of
man has been poured out like water; a
right, derived from God himself: a
right, which, amid all the terrors of the
American Revolution was the cloud by
day, and the pillar by night, to guide
the armies Of the colonies to a most
glorious triumph.
The opinion Of the individual who
twice argued with the most consummate
ability the case Of bred Scott, on be.
half Of the master, certainly should be
entltledto some considerations in arriving
at conclusion, as to the questions de-
cided by the Supreme Court.
In the letter Of the Hon. Reverb,
johnson, of Maryland, to John Clancy
Esq, Of New York, dated May 10th
1850, he says:
The vindication for the admitted apparen
change and the excuse for the grossly unjus
and suicidal warfare on Douglas and hi
friends. waged by gentlemen Of the section 70
whose rights he hazards 40 much, aud so muc
cont rbuted to uphold is that the question {
Territorial power has been decided by the Su
preme Court This lie asserted daily by man
VINO perhaps never even read the bred Scot
judgment, or from their pursuits are CONNIE
tent to pass upon it. Having argued the css
twice, % the friend OF the South, and bestov =
upon all the questions it involved Tho No.
GOnf
dence that the question was not only not dec
dsd BY the Cours, but was neither argued nor i
anyway presented for decision. The siuQ]
inquiry in this connection was, had ConRre,
the power to prohibit slavery in Territory
When orgsnizsd into government, what Il
Territorial Legislature could do was not befol
the Court. either directly or indirectly.
maintained. however. then. as think nov
that the power was With Legislature b
proposition. and it Vas stated 70 . reast
against the existence Of the Compression
power that lslsvsry could neither b. estal
liahsd % prohibited BY Copgssss, but that Il
people 81 . Territory. when organized BY Co
eress, san estsblieh or prohibit" it; Nj. jam
0srtia 10 his opinion. 70 giving any propos
tios, esstainly never supposed that there .,
istsd IN any part Of the eivilissd world 20
esan1ot vkees slavery existed in which TIE