The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1860-07-05

must Of necessity be law giving him that right
a Can STAKEHOLDER GO there from keutueky aea
e take the local Law Of thai State with himf II
], not, he cannot bold that properly in ksnsas-
= Let Us look at the thing moment Slaves By
the laws OF Kentucky real estate, g they are
: also by the laws of Louisiana; in Virginia they
are personal properfy--they go to the admins
: tretor aud rot TO the heirs Suppose slave
holder goes from Kentucky and moves his real
( estate with him, (which used 60 be accounted .
difficult featl and Shareholder goes from Sir.
gina and takess.s personal property. Suppose
; ; then that the real esta,r of the kent0ckian
: should iutermarry with the personal property Of
the gentleman from Nrgisia, ask What kind OF
properly the children would be? Much laugh.
ter This shows the practical effect of the
thing. and exhibits It's absurdity.
You have u bank IN Indiana That is person
al property, and according to this common blood
and treasure argument the owners of that bank
would have right TO carry that bank into the
Territory of Kansas. and there carry on the
banking business. Bu: they cannot. Whyf-
Because they cannot carry the local Law that
creates that bauk. Fee the same reason tho
STAKEHOLDER cannot carry with him his slave
from kentueky, because he esnnot carry the
local law that creates and makes that man .
slave.
pRED-scorTisx asvIKgEp.
Gentlemen, We are sometimes asked the ques
]
Courte Will you abide By the deeisoe OF that
Court. made IN proper casee And l say that
will. whenever the court has right to decide
the question. | say that as law abiding man.
will stand by it until the law has been repealed
in some legitimate way, or the decision reversed
by competent tribunal. Batthe Question arises
frst here, did the Supreme Court decide in the
Dred Scott case that u STAKEHOLDER had . right
TO carry his slave into Territory and hold him,
and that Congress had no power to exclude
slavery therefrom.
will sag iast here. that while my friend con-
tends in general terms for Popular Sovereignty.
he al the sane time indorses the decision OF the
Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. We'll,
the decision directly pulls up Popular Sover-
eighty by the roots, for although it decided that
Congress has 20 power to exclude slavery, it
gives the right to govern the Territory, and
when she does he says. he is in the attitude of
the man ear; ying his own head in a basket
Laugh er. The two things are inconsistent
.od cannot stand together for moment.
Ii is we'll recognized principle among law
yers. thai when a court gives al opihion upon q
question not arising in a case. tina. it is not bind.
lug it is what We call O6tter dsct0. that is an
iaciiental saving The coorts cannot bind any
body by its opinion upoa given qrestioo with
out that question is presented by the ease be.
tore the court. Suppose suit ia brought in the
Monroe Circut Court for piece OF land. The
court decides that the land belongs to Richard
Roe aud not TO John Doe, and then goes on snd
gives an opinion az to the power OF Csug-ess to
exclude slavery from the Territories. Of that
you would say that SO far AS slavery ia the Ter
ritories is concerned il is his opinion, but it is
not binding apon anybody because that question
did not arise in the case. If the opinion he
worth anything 1t is because of its intrinsic
soundness, aud not because of its binding force
There is another rule of law, that when q
| Court has inri sdiction it give opinion;
the Court having Jurisdiction, it cannot en-
PANEL I1ry. or hear the evidence, or the argu-
| ments of counsel. because. having no jurisdc-
tion. il can make no ipvestigati whatever, but
[ he case mast be dismissed once.
This represents the 81 ate OF the Dred Scott
case. There was but one point before ihe court
and there is but one decided. pred Scott
brought bis suit asserting his right to freedoms
and the freedom Of his family. The suit was
. 2ainst Sanford. Sanford put 10 pIea in abafe.
Emsnt He declared that the Court had no "a.
risdiction to try that case, because Dred 8,ott
had no right to enc in that Court; and be said
that Dred Scott having been born Of slave par.
ents sbd having negro blood in bis veins, wsa
not -citizen Of the STATE Of Missouri within tho
meaning Of the Constitution Of the United
States and tha, the Court had no jarisdction.
That was the Only question before the Sapreme
Court of the United States. and that Was the
only question decided. The Court in the first
place says it had right to give its opiGon on
lthe question OF Jurisdiction IL held that Dred
Scott being the descendants Of slave parents aud
bring suit in that Court: hut after having dona
that j udge fancy went on and gave the opinion
Of the Court as to the right of ihe STAKEHOLDER to
carry slaves into the Territories ard hold them
there property question that dad not
| arise 10 thai case lore than in the case OF land
title have referredto. This ou1 size matter was
dragged IN. and the purpose sas 10 aid the Dem.
ocra,ic party, and if possible to invest those
/ opn ons with the sanc,ity and power of jadicial
opuio1s. : After he had talked all over creation
| nn shis subject ne did not dare To decide the
lease upon those grounds: ne had to come right
fback and decide simply the question of jurisic-
ZION. / will read the decision of fhe Court, the
iual Judgment and you vii see upon what
fgrouDd is placed its decision: rsay
| .Upon the whole. therefore, il is the Judgment
% this court, that II appears by the record be.
fore ue ibat4hs plaintiff in error is not q citi.
q used iss the Constitution and that the Circuit
IGosft Of the United states. for shst reason, had
! no iasisdction. 10 the scase nd. could give no
Judgment ia IL Its Judgment for the defendant
1 must, consequently. be reversed, and . mandate
iesned directing the ssit be dismissed fos want Of
ljassdictiou.' fs.sasz-a. eeLI 7k-#
4 So that every man can at once see and under-
stand upon what point that case wss decided
asd ali that the Judges ssy upon thess other
oaessioss 10 out outside Of The es3e, md cannot
DO binding nPan anybody. e =
: A GLANCE AT THE RxcoKn
4 Nov. gentlemen. want TO refer to this thing
) this nee discovery of the mesniDg OF our
.Gosstit7tion- l have snenfiooed to 700 vhab
, the policy Of this Govermen. wa uutil 1874
Why. gentlemen, the sixth act passed by the frst
!. Congress under the present Constitss1os was Tie
\ sct 10 rxaf6rm the oedinaacs of 1881 TAss
act prohibited slavery 10 ell the uorthsest terri
|. tory. The sixth oct. passed under tbs present
Z tConstitstSoo, reaismed that ordinsnce- Thsa
ordinance had been passed By the old Congress
Of the coakdeTstroo, end il sas worthless undes
: The psssens Gonssitatics unles adoPted BY the
, pseesns government; aod is uas adopted scd i
:. excloded slavery IRON ell the northwest terrific
y ~, incIudine Indiana. From time TO time
'e Jecerxoa, Msdissn.i Aosroe. sAdams. Jsebsoa
Wan Barren aoi Polk, Al sigeed bE:A tos Prohib
le hibiting slavery il Sarioae terntosiee james
2 K Poik. . davsholder. from Tennessee-I be
20 lieve- ne was a hones4 man and who uads Z
D. eosd Prssident-himaif signed the biIt pazaaf
hr ConRrem vh.eA e1cioded seyesI iron tha