The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-04-13
Hon. Edward Bates on Slavery.

Hon. Edward Bates of Missouri has written
n letter in reply to inquiries addressed to him
by the delegates chosen to represent that State
in the Chicago Convention. 1t is PLAIN ana
frank document, and contains views eminently
sound and patriotic. We notice some points.
On the general question of slavery he says;
Tb, existence of negro slvaery in our country
had lis beginning in the early times Of the
Colonies and was imposed by the mother coun-
try. against the will of most OF the col0nists.-
Al the time Of the Revolution and long after, II
was commonly regarded as an evil, temporary
in its nature, and likely to sappear IN the
course Of time, yet while ii continued, misfor-
tune to the country, socially and POLITICAL
Slavery IL n "social relation"--a domestic
institution. Within the States, exists by the
IDEAL law, and the Federal Government has no
control over il there. The Territories, wheth-
err acquired BY conquest or peaceable purchase
arr subject and subordinate; not sovereign,
like the States. The nation is supreme over
them, and the national government has the
power to permit or forbid slavery within them.
Entertaining these views, am opposed 70 the
extension Of slavery, and IN my opnlon Tue
spirit and policy # the government ought 10
DO against It's extension.
As to the question whether the Constitution
carries slavery into the territories, he says en-
phatically. NO. "with much more show OF
reason" he remarks, "may 1t be said that 1t
carries slavery into the States. But 1t docs not
carry slavery anywhere"
Ofthc bred Scot case he speaks bri'fy and
vet gives the actual state Of that case, and dis.
poses Of the f,llacy which Douglas and politi-
clans of his stripe have put forth in regard to
that matter. He says:
Itismy opinion, that the court determined one
single point of law only-that is. that Scott,
the plaintiff, being negro Of African descent
(not necessarily u slaye), could not be citizen
of Missouri, and therefore could not sue in the
Federal Court; aud that for this reason, anu
this alone. the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction
of the case, and no power to give Judgment
which the Supreme Court had Of the case was
for the purpose Of correcting the error OF the
Circuit Court IN assuming the power to decide
upon the merits Ofthe case. This power the
Supreme Court did exercise, by setting aside
the Judgment of the Circuit Court upon the
merits. and by disnssing the suit without any
Judgment for or against either party, Inns is
all that the Supreme Court did, and oil that IL
had lawful power to do.
| consider il great public misfortune that
several of tie learned judges should have
thought that their duty required them 70 dls-
cuss and give opinions upon various questions
outside of the case, as the case was actually
disposed of By the Court. All such opinions
are extrajudical and Of no authority. But
besides this, it appears to me that several gnes;;
tions so discussed by the Judges, are political
questions. and therefore beyond the cognizancc
of the judiciary and proper only to be consiuer-
cd and disposed ofby the political departments
If I am right i'm this, unfortunate, because 1t
NAV lead to dangerous conflict Of authority
among the coordinate branches the govern
ment