Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1860-02-03

bnht VIC lutenQ lticNalty Htt~ t"S"'~-.'l =
resist the decision Of that court, and tovce
kind Of citizenship upon the country with
which we have nothing to Go. So far then
for the Dred Scott decision.
oBrTRR DIorA.
Gentlemen, time passes quickly, and Of
course cannot go eaborately into the ar-
pument upon the other part Of that which
Is claimed to be the decision in the Dred
Scott case, that is, that the law OF 1877
first passed by the confederation Of States,
and re-enacted BY the House OF Representa-
tives at its very first session under the Con-
stitution 10 1889, was constitutional
That is the dicta Of these five Judges
Well now, gentlemen, just let me state one
or two strong points that every man Of COM
mon sense can understand. IL 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 on 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 dicta,
that is, words spoken incidentally, and not
to the main question, is not law. There
are Democratic lawyers that hear me to-
night, and they will bear me out in tho
statement, and it is right There are just
reasons for it, because the attention Of tho
Judges being bound to the main issue, they
must not he held responsible for the incl
dental questions Of the case. Now, that IS
what Justices Mclean and Curtis tell US,
, and they are, in my opinion tho ablest
Judges upon the bench. think Justice
Curtis the ablest Judge ever read after,
and he tells us, that when the Supreme
Court decided in the case that it had no ju-
risdction there their whole powerceased.--
That is what this Judge tells us, that is
what the Republicans that is what every
f honest man, unbiased by political assoeia-
f tions and considerations, must say. | say
: it, gentlemen, that in my humble judgment,
i the rest of the opinion is not law, and in
: this am supported by some of the very
e ablest judicial minds of the United States.
e Not only so, but Justice Curtis shows that
S the Supreme Court has decided again and
f again that obiter dcta is not law, and is
! not so to be considered. There are decis-
] ions in that report quoted, absolutely made
D to the effect that these incidental decisions
S that come in are not part of the law of the
!, land. Therefore, we say, in denial of
, what the Democratic party has said to-day,
Y that it is not the law of the land. There
n fore, we 90 upon that subject for not chang
4; ing, rather we deny that it is law, and We
IS appeal to the country to decide between us.
:. We owe no allegiance to it as law OF the
g United States, but it is yet open for free
d discussion by the people of the United
= States, that they may determine it under
r the Constitution of the United States. To
IS SO much we plead guilty.
e. THE WORD REGULATE.
I. Now, as that is an important question,
:! let us dwell yet while longer upon it. In
:, the first place, let us see what were the
~ terms Of the old Confederation in connec-
y tion with it, They declared, gentlemen, be-
- fore 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
e political and practical over them, that is to
'r' say they yielded the entire jurisdiction of
ie the Territory, and the United States under
G. the act yielding these territories to the Uni
L ted States, achieved as they were by the
Fly common blood and treasure, it was the de-
NJ termination of all the States themselves to
ne yield up the entire control of them, and
a therefore when the Supreme Court Under
VI took to say that that clause of the Consti-
IS tuition which says, "The Congress shall
50 have power to dispose of and make all
% needful rules and regulations respecting the
~ territory or other property of the United
IL States" does not mean what it says, they
III are forced to the absurd conclusion hotwith
W standing the object had in view in making
ng the cession, that when the land was given
60 the States giving did not mean what they
III said; look to what a forced construction
" they are driven. They deny this positv,
~, grant of power to pass laws by Congress {,
pro prohibit slavery in the Territories, and th
'us assertion that the word REGULATION" is no
u" na a common term used by legal men whe
er' they intend to confer a power That is th
argument of the Supreme Court.
be- Let us look at that. -Four times is th
IN word regulation" used in the Constitulio
ar, with regard to grants of power, and thu.
ted so far from being an unusual term, it was
OF usual one in the disposition of power
can the United States. Another clause say
es' that Congress shall have power to 'regt
es, late commerce." Does any Democrat dc
OF ny that that is legislative powerl Wha
uri under it, have they done? They not onl
lth "regulate commerce" under it, between fo
= eign countries and this, regulating foreig
ilre and domestic trade, but they passed Il
mt embargo. WhyG Because they had ii
,rd, power to make all needful rules and reg
lor, latious appertaining thereto. In the TER
ted tories they have similar power delegated
to somewhat the same words. Not only b,
'om they the power to cherish commerce, b
was they had a right TO prohibit and destr
rtis, commerce ITSELF Certainly that is a leg
'lon ative power; and it was exercised und
al this very term "regulate;" therefore it
ava absolutely absurd when the Supreme Coz
Jus, and the Democratic party undertake to S
OF that when it was enacted that Congrc
'he should have the power to make all need
at rules and regulations for the Territory, d
nent not delegate Legislative power. So II
ear, the very language that they claim wor
,red debar grant Of power, is shown, by Il