New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-01-21

that who wads inaugural sadreS John O. Brsckin-
ridge dose notunderetand IL cfac 10 great hypocrte.
He ignorant Of the ques.c at Issue, he s hypo-
te and intended deter snedly to deceive the people
Of the United States but Of in consequence of
the respect have for him, believe that he Is utterly
ignorant Of The questions at issue in the think
can preeent them so that man of the coiamonest
defttandlng can comprehend the case.
viii state the substance of the thing. II was suit
brought by man Of color, called Dred Scott first,
believe, in the State Courts Of Missouri, where it
decided that Scott Free then going up, think 10
the Supreme Court Of Missouri where the decision
reversed and sent back. IL taken 20 the Circuit
Court; the pleadpgs were made TO this extent, that
plea Of abatement was made-Dred Scott bringing an
action declaring that, ei a. ARMS, Sanford had
assaulted hun, also Harriet Scott his wife, and chil
dIen. To ths sanford, who is also upon the record,
and admitted to be- know not II in reality, citizen
Of New-York, pleaded, in abatement that bred Scott
and his wife and children his slaves, and that,
beng slaves rather 10 use the language as used 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 Sanford
called upon the Court TO throw the case ont OF Court
that they had no jurisdiction and that he Sandford)
should hold as master, bred Scott.
So far az the bred Scott decision became law of
the United States it is simply thus that after the case
twice argued in the Supreme Court OF the United
States majority, standing seven otwo, Of the jus;
tees decided that man Of African blood descended
from parents slaves could not be citizens Of the
United States and therefore could not in the Courts
of the United States and therefore the Court having
no jurisdiction it was returned with instructions to
sustain the Circuit Court That is what they decided.
Now desire to state that, in my humble judgment,
bred Scott not the slave of Sanford, and being
free nan and man of color according TO the Constr
tuition Of the United States when il was made, he had
right 20 sue and had right to be relieved from this
existence of az et ars and that was the opinion OF
justices Mclean and Curtis, and every lawyer that
has read the decision Of the Court in Towards Re-
ports that have spoken TO upon the subject has in
aaid IN that ha of.
ID the most conclusive piece Of judicial logic ever pre-
serted in all the books of judicial decisions. have 1t
at hOe and declare that in my judgment there Is no
proposition in Euclid more clearly demonstrated than
that Net that bred Scott had right to citizenship,
TO hold Office and vote-rights which many white per-
sons as for instance women, have not-but that he had
right TO the projection afforded by law; that being
free man, by being carried first into free state and
then to the Territory ceded to the United States by
France he had right TO cue and TO be sued. He
never declared that Scott was entitled 10 all the pvi
leges of a citizen, but the Constitution says:
1.-THE citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges
and inn unniiies Of citizens in the several States"
And If Kentucky determines that the black man can
not hold Office in the Commonwealth, black man
coming from Massachusetts, cannot hold Office; he is but
entitled the protection of the laws given for the pro-
lection Of his own race and condition.
The bred Scott decision was gotten up entirely by
the Democratic party, and it was made in 1885, after
the election of President Buchanan and intended 10
sustain the Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
In passing, allow me to say that we make no issue
edge the Supreme Court decision to be the supreme law
of the land and deny the allegation that intend
illegally and factously to resist the decision OF that
Court and force kind of citizenship upon the country
with which we have nothing TO do. So far then for
the bred Scott decision.
oBTTER DICTA.
Gentlemen, time passes quickly, and Of course 1
cannot 90 deliberately into the argument upon the other
part Of that which is claimed to be the decision In the
bred Scott case that is that the law of 1857 first passed
by the Confederation of States and reenacted by the
House of Representatives at ts very rst session under
the Constitution in 1889 unconstitutional That
the dicta of these five Judges Well now, gentlemen,
Just let state or two strong points that every
man Of common can understand 1t is the prac-
tice of all Courts-Courts of Common Law and Courts
of Equity of the United States, and Of all Courts OF
reasonable Justice and common sense Gods earth,
from the earliest time TO the latest day, that when
questions come up for decision, they decide the main
question, and that obiter dcta that ls words spoken
incidentally and to the main question, is not law.
There are Democratic LAWYERS that hear me tonight
and they will bear me ont IN this statement, and IL ID
right There just reasons for IT. because the atten-
ton Of the Judges beng bound to the main ISSUE they
must not be held responsible for the incidental 9ues
ons Of the case Now, that is what Justices Mclean
and Curtis tell us, and they are, in my opinion, the
ablest Judges upon the Bench. think Justice Curtis
the abes Judge read after and he tells us that
when the Supreme Court decided in the that had
no jurisdiction there their whole power ceased. That
is what this Judge tells us that iswhat the Republicans
say that is what every honest man, unbiased oy pon
cal associations and considerations must say. say IT,
gentlemen that in my humble Judgment the rest OF the
opinion is not law, and in this am supported by some
Of the very ablest judicial minds of the United States
Not only So but Justice Curtis shows that the Supreme
Court has decided again and again that obiter dcta is
not law and ia not be considered There are de-
csions in that report quoted, absolutely made TO the
effect that these incidental decisions that come IN are
bot part of the law of the land Therefore, say in
denial Of what the Democratic party has said to-day,
that it is not the law Of the land Therefore, we go upon
that subject for not changing rather we deny that it is
law and appeal to the country TO decide between
us. We owe no allegiance TO it as to law OF the
United States but yet open for free discussion by
the people of the United States, that they may deter
mine il under the Constitution of the United States
To 20 much we plead guilty.
THE WORD REGULATE.
Now, as that is an important question, let us dwell
vet while longer upon il. In the first place, let ns
see what were the terms of the old Confederation IN
connection with It. They declared gentlemen, before
they ceded these lands TO the United States that these
Territories should belong to the United States and that
the United States should have complete CONTROL both
political and PRACTICAL them; that is TO say, that
they yielded the eire jurisdiction CT the Territory,
and the United States under the act yielding these
Territories TO the United States achieved as they were
by the common blood and treasure, it was the deter
animation of all the States Themselves to yield up the
entire control Of Them and therefore when the SUI
preme Court undertook say that that clause Of the
CONSTITUTION which says: The Congress shall have
power TO dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory other property
of the United States" does not mean what 1t says,
they are forced to the absurd conclusion, notwhstaDd
ing the object had in view in making the cession that
when the land was gwen the States did net mean
what they said look TO what forced construction
they are given. They deny this positive grant OF
mower 70 pass laws by Congress TO prohibit Slavery in
The Territories aud the assertion that the word "regu
lation" is not common term used by legal men when
they intend 10 confer power That is the argument
Of Che Supreme Court.
Ietus look at that Eour times is the word "regu.
lafio in