The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-02-16
YORK HERALD THURSDAY FEBRUARY 49, TRIPLE SHEET

| AIplsuae There The Of TIC shce mater. as
.atd hs.e 70 plsi'-,he bsDnas q thus RAD % We
Lin ~ tie deuocretlc parytht tue LAWS OF Missouri
and kAnsas gave 80 protection to hG sne thl he h.s
oure more 70 appeal u the Coz Of Hcs for defence ano
ne cFrried hat in Kansas, in Mssoari, aud "a
virginia The whole story s tod was nothing but the
raid Of ijured by age ossijns MA e upon bin,
ana these proved 10 bsve been begun and conpetd BY
! the Democratic party themselves fhefeiore. null
back the mpn,ap and history viii stand b. the record
That rs all o II Tho calunles OF nfn lated pars'nshp
viii prove ID Inc sequel poisoned chats returning upon
,beil prceN,ers Cheers The lnsesaessng SENATORIAL
CNlut~- Will establish innocence and cousigB our
| actusers ~ merited MANY
INDICTMENT AGAINST REPUBLICANS.
The dsnccI yalty mskes against US, through the
Vice President Ct tic United States tea form allegations
~ INTRODUCE the doc.sne negro equality into Ameri
can politics. and to uake. the eroaai OF positive egsA'
10 exclude the e.aye property at the South from all
territory now ia the Union, or which heres'r may 90
| Ito prevent the admission in cny iasture II another
To repeal the Fugitive Slave aud pr ascAy refuse
4 70 obey the constitution on that subject.
To refuse prevent punish BY State action the
make criminal offence In their citizens 10 obey the
laws q the Union, far they protect property in
| "TO abolhh slavery in the District of Columbia
s'To abolish Il in the fors cocAy ards, Arseuals and
Other place In the South where Congress has exclusive
"Io abolish the International and coAstwse trade
'To limit, hsrsse ana rOwn upon the institution IN
every mode Of political ACTON and by every form OF pub
aApd finally, by the Executive, by Congress- by the
posnl service, the press and in ali other accsss;os
lnods, TO agae without ceasing, until the Southern
States without sympathy or brotherhood IN ,he Unios:
down by the Unequal struggle, shall be Compelled
to surrender isnonniousy and cmsncpse their slaves
Now, Gentlemen, these are allegations formally put
Who nssss them, but take the aliesas:oSs as fnd
them ana shall attempt them Ia detail FIRST
upon recorded action and the integrity of
character plead not guilty Of the CHARGES not guilty on
| EQUALITY.
First We are rot guilty Of the purpose to introduce
the doctrine OF negro equality unto American pohucs'
and " make the ground OF positive leg station hos
tile TO the Southern States Mark tue crime Is here that
| We have beeL guilty OF "n'rocucng" Now 1t Is we'll
known far common Iunior goes-we cannot always
udge OF the motives OF men-ihat the bred Scott case
was gotten up by agreement in ADVANCE Of legislation,
but subsequent to the declaration OF the purpose Of the
democratic party to take possession Kansas. We did
any such jet Introduced into politics whys
Because there already odum enough attached to
being defenders Of the rights Of the negro against
the while We we're called already negro lovers"
and was not 10 our interest 10 gel no an issue OF this
| kind, If we desired 20 do But agreed case
made, AZ is reported 10 Howarus Reports The case
up to the Supreme Court of the United States from
the United States District Court OF Missouri and although
am follower OF the plough, and although he has
leIhsps studied law all his ute, declare that John
can present il so that Of the commonest
understanding can compre bend it. will sta,e the
| IL
man Of coor, called Dre1 Scott, first IN the
Courts Of Missouri, where il decided that Scott
was tree then gong up think to the Supreme Court OF
1t taken to the Circuit Court the peaoiDgs were to
this extent plea of abatement WAS made, bred Scott
bringing action declaring that, ct drmis, Sand
ford had assaulted him. and also Harriet Scott his wife,
and children. To this Sanford, who is also upon the
admitted TO bel know not IN reaty-a citizen
Of New York pcanet in abatement that bred Scott and
biz wife and children were his slaves, and that being
slaves rather to quote the language as used in the
pleadpRe that he the DESCENDANT OF African slaves,
man OF color. negro, aud therefore he could not be
Court TO throw the case out Of COURT that they hai no
jurisdiction, and that be (saudord should hold
ter bred Scott So far the Dreo Scot, decision became
law of the United States is simply thus that after the
twice argued the Supreme Court Of the United
decided that man Of African blood descended from pa
rents once slaves could not be citizen Of the United
s..es and teereiose the court navug no ursacGon
Court That whatthey decided Now, desire to state
that, in my humble judgment, bred Scott was not the
ding TO the constitution Of the United States when was
made he had right TO and had rghtto te relieved
the opinion Of Justices Mclean and Curtis And every
lawyer that has the Of the Court Howard
' ss ss me MOST
conclusive piece OF logic ever presented In all the books
Of judicial decisions have 4 at home, and declare
Euclid more clearly demonstrated than that Not
that o ed o Scot, had right h,s 70 citizenship hip,
pesons for instance women, have not, but that he
had right to the protection Afforded by law; that being
TO the territory cSed to the uned States by France be
had right 70 sue and to be sued Applause BE never
mat ss0 sS 70 al s q
State shal be entitled to all privileges and immunites Of
citizens in the several States and If Kentucky deter
mines that the black hold office in the Com.
mopwealth black coming from Massachusetts
not bold Office he but entitled TO the protection or the
laws given for the security of his own and condition
The bred Scott decision gotten up entirely by the de-
mocratc party and was made in 1865, after the cleo
ton OF President Buchanan and intended to the
KansasNebraska bill. In passing, allow say that
We make NO issue with the Supreme Court that
the law of the land, and deny the allegation that
tend e galy and acousy to resist the decision Of that
nS force KIND nonz rs do upon the county
the bred Scott decision Gentlemen time passes quickly
and Of course cannot 60 deliberately into the Argument
upon the other part OF that which Claimed to be the de
in the bred Scott case-that that the Law OF 1897
fret passed by the confederation Of ates and enacted
by the Houee OF Representatives its very frst
under the constitution 1889, was uucons 1t tutonal
That Ia the dictum Of these five Judges Well now gen
every man Of common sense can undersasd Is the
practice Of ell courCourts OF common law and courts of
equity Of the United States and all the courts OF reason
justice and common earth, from the earliest
time 10 the latest day that when questions up for
decision they decide the main qaesiion and that other
dicta that ia words spoken incidentally and not
main question, notaw There democratic lawyers
that hear me to night, and they will bear out in
for it. because, the attention Of the judges being bound
to the main sue they must not be held responsible for
the Incidental Questions OF TIE case now that rs what
Justices Mclean and Curtis tell US. and they are my
opinion the abeet judges upon the bench think Justice
Curtis the ablest judge read after, he tells
that when the Supreme Court decided in the thai
had jurisdiction then their whole power ceased That
is what this judge tells that what the republicans
that is what every honest man, unbiased by political
associations and considerations, must say. say gentle
men, that in humble judgment the rest OF the opinion
s not law and in this am supported by Of the very
ablest JUDICIAL minds Of the United States Not only 60
but Justice Curtis shows that the Supreme Court has
decided again and again, that obter dcta Law,
q
that report quoted, absolutely made TO the effect that
the Incidental decisons thai In part OF
the law Of the land. Therefore say, denial of
what the democratic party has said, that it ia the
Law OF the land Therefore we 60 upon that subject
not for changing, but rather deny that il law
and We appeal 70 the country to decide between u.s.
We owe no alegance to it as 10 law Of the United
States but it Is open for discussion people,
that they may determine under the constitution OF the
/ United States. To much We nlead guilty Nov as