The Tiffin weekly tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1859-1868, 1860-08-10
Popular Sovereignty aud the
Supreme Court.

longing hepublicans 20 deny it, or show
that the Court did so decide, propose to
call attention to what the Court did de-
eide with reference 70 that point.
Republicans do not charge that the
Court decided that the Constitution car.
riss slavery into the Territories. But
we say the Court decided, that, when the
oi0ner # a slave carries his slave proper
" into the territory, the constitution pro-
ieeis him in hs right Of property in his
slave, in the absence Of either Congress
ionul or local legislation on the subject,
and that any act Of Congress, depriving
the owner Of his right of property in
such slave, would be void, and in yio-
lation Of that clause in the Constitution,
which declares "that no person shall be
deprived Of life, liberty or property with
out due process Of law" l quote the Lam
guage Of the Court In 18th Howard,
commencing on p. 45O, the court says:
"Thus the rights ofproperty are unit
ed with the rights Of person, aud placed
on the same ground by the fifth amend
ment to the Constitution, which provides
that no person shall be deprived Of life,
liberty or property without due process
Of law And an act Of Congress which
deprives a citizen Of the United States Of
his liberty or property, because he came
himself or brought his property into a
particular territory Of the United States,
aud who had comlnitted no offence against
the laws, could hardly be dignifiod with
the name Of due process Of law.
-
The powers over person and property Of
which we speak are not only not grant
cd to Congress, but are in express terms
denied =
And If Congress itself cannot do this de-
priyo a citizen of liberty orproperty with
out due process Of lawl-if il is beyond
the powers conferred on the General G ov-
ornmen,, il will be admitted we presume
that il could not authorize TERRIFIC
RIAL GOVERNMENT to ezsrcise them.
(The italics are mine.)
Again, on page sbl: "And IL the Con-
stitution recognizes the right Of property
Of the master in a slave, and makes no
distinction betireen that description Of
property and other property, NO TRI-
lBUNAL, acting under authority Of the
United States, whether it be LEGISLA-
TIVE, executive or judicial, has right
to draw such distinction, or deny to it
the benefit of the provisions and guuran-
tees, which have been provided for the
protection Of private property against the
encroachments ofthe government
And no word can be found in the Consti-
tuition which gives Congress a greater
power over slave property, or which en-
titles property of that kind to less protee-
iiOn than property Of any other desoriP-
ton"
"The only power conferred, is the
power coupled rih he duty of guarding
aud projecting the owner in his rights"
4 "UPv,, .these cousIuuruuuus, iv-is ti,y
opinion of the Court that the act of Com
gress which prohibitlda a citizen from hold
ing and owning property Of this kind in
the territory ofthe Unit3d States, north
of the line therein mentioned, Is not lcar-
raHtsd By the Constitution, aud is, there
fore, void; and that neither Drcd Scott
himself nor any ofhis family Dere made
free by being carried iato this Territory
even il they had been carried there by
the owner with the intention OF becom-
ing permanent resident"
Now, Mr.. Editor, let me in view Of
these determinations Of the Court Osk
my democratic friends few questions.
Ist II Drcd Scott and his family were
held as slaves in the territory ofMinne'
sofa, in tho absence Of all legislation
(savc law of Congress prohibiting the
holding of slaves) by what authority
other than the Consultation were they SC
heidi .f..s ..r.... DO
I'd, IL a law Of Congress, prohibiting
the holding Of slaves in the territory, is 1
violation of the 9th amendment to the
Constitution, why would nota law ofthC
territorial Legislature prohibiting the SAINT
thing, be violation of the same oonsti
ution0l provision! l. d. f
Sd. In tho light of this decision, wha
becomes Of the bOasted doctrine of Pop
uln- G'ias, squatter Sovereignty, AHA
''nttle giantl"
4th, What is your objection TO th'
breckenridge platform, which only en-
dorses the doctrines distinctly and clear
ly laid down in this decisioni
9th. And what is the difference be
tween the Douglas Platform,whleh adopt
their decision and refers to it for an ex
planation naturalization Of It's doctrines
and the Breckenridge platform, which
copies the decision directly into the BODY
of the resolutions, so that every body cSI
sec what Il means without referring I,
law books and consulting lawyersl
JEFFERSON.
-~pe~e--@
HeE., Kssa.H..v. - Fasgsta..