Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1860-08-07


erhood who declares that the men at the hesd
Of the organization throughout the State" are
sore heads and disappointed office seekers"
Il IL rsihe. significant fact that the Doug
lastes are utterly ut loss who to blame for
this letter We believe il is generally agreed
THAI it is not the Postmaster, or the Deputy
Marshal. Arc there Breckenridge men
than they can count; ? Where is the " Dividing
Line between Federal and local principle.
20 The LHtel.igcncer. IN replying TO one
question TO what was decided by the Su-
preme Court in the bred Scott case, makes
very short work Of it, in the following words
We answer: that bred Scot. was no. a citi-
zen of the United States and therefore not en-
iItled 10 sue in the Courts thereof. There were
various q CT: Ia the opinions of thc Judges, bat
we consider that the above was all that de-
clded in that case
This answer of the hlteLligc,,eer places its edi-
tor in direct antagonism with his candidate for
President. as his opinion upon non-iuterven-
ton does with his candidate for Vice Pres-
dent. 1t is sometimes the case, however, that
great minds differ upon legal questions. and
the Democratic party being at this time SO
split up. it can hardly be expected that any
two Of them VIII agree upon a single point
Bu; let us see how Mr.. Douglas looks upon the
bred Scott Decision. He evidently considers
those various dieta the opinions OF the judg
es as a portion of the decision, for in u speech
before the Grand Jury at Springfield, on the
18th of July 1857. IN referring to the bred
Scott Decision he said:
The Court did not attempt to cvade respon-
sibility by disposlug of the upon trivial
points without touching the merits, NOR DID
THEY GO OUT OF THE WAY TO DECIDE
QUESTIONS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE
THEM AND DIRECTLY PRESEN TED BY
THE RECORD. Like honest and conscien-
tious Judges. they met and decided each point
as Il arose and faithfully performed their whole
duty. aud nothing but their duty to the conn
try. BY DETERMINING ALL THE QUE S-
TIONS IN THE CASE. AND NOTHING
BUT WHAT WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE
DECISION OF THE CASE UPON IT'S
MERITS"
We quote again from 18th Howard, page
1876. portion Of the bred Scott Decision, as
reported
>. Congress. has no right TO prohibit clti.
zeps Of any particular State or States from Ia
king up their home there, while II permits cItI-
zeus OF other States to do Nor has II right
TO give privileges TO one class of citizens Inch
i. refuses TO another. The Territory is acqul-
red for their equal and common benefits. and
# open to any it must be open 10 all upon
equal aud the same terms.
81. " EVERY CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT TO TAKE
WITH HIM INTO THE TERRGToRY ANY ARTICLE OF
PROPERTY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE L NJ
TED STATES RECOGNIZES As PROPERTY
ith. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE u. 5. RECoGsr-
zEs SLAVES As PROPERTY. AND PLEDGES THE FED
ER.L GOVERNMENT PROTECT 1T. And Con-
gross cannot exercise any more authority over
property OF that description than 1t may con
st!tutionally exercise over property fany 9TH
er kind"
SIN. The act of Congress. therefore, prohih-
Ting citizen Of the Uuied States taking with
HIM his slave. when he removes TO the Terri
tory IN question to reside. Is Az EXERCISE or AU
THoRITY OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH is NOT
WARRANTED By THE Co,srITUrIos, and the re-
moval Of the plaintiff by his owner TO tina,
Territory gave him title to freedom"
9th d" " bile 1t remains Territory Con-
gress may leg>late over It within the scope of
Its constitutional powers IA relation 10 citizens
of the United States. aud may establish Ter
ritorlal Government, and the form of ,hIs local
government must be regulated by the descre
tion of Congress bat with powers not exceed
ing those vi Inch Congress itself by the ConstI-
tuition = authorized 10 exercise over citizens
Of the United States IN respect to thelr rights
OF property. "-Dre.i Scott Decision.
hr. Douglas said again at New Orleans:
/. in common with the Democracy of
Illinois, accept the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the Dred Scott
case, as an authoritative exposition of the
Constitution. Whatever llmi atoms the
Constitution, as expounded by the Courts
imposes upon the authority OF a Territorial
Legislature. We cteerfuiiy recognize aud re-
sPect In conformity with the decision Sl-Tes
are recognized as property, and placed on a
footing with other property. Hence. the
O1C1lcr Of SldUeS-the same as tie 0trher
Of any other SpecjeS of propertg--has a
right 10 reHiore To q TeyritOry and carry
ms property toitt htn.
Such are the views OF the Iatalitgencer
ddae for President. aud the editor does
no. agree with him, we ask why is he support
ing him? Is it The man instead Of the princi
pie. as it is in the case of bis support Of NJ
Johnson Had Mr.. Fitzpatrick not declined
the nomination for Wee President, We pre-
sumo oGr nsIghbor would have heen just as ar
den: IN supporting him, notwithstanding his
opposItIak 10 Douglas
CoAI Oil is SID to be sure destroyer Of bed