New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-02-16

int we have been guilty of Introducing Now u 10
we'll known, so far ne common rumor goes-we can
not always judge of the motives OF men-sna, TOE
bred Scott case wac gotten up by agreement in ad-
vance of legislation but subsequent TO the deelaraaon
OF the purpose Of the Democratic party to take posses
sion Of Kansas We did not want any such subject
into politics. Why! Bec1nse there was
already odium enough attached to us as beng The de-
tenders of TIE rights of the negro against The white
nan. We were called already negro-loyers, and u
was not TO our interest 10 get up an ue oil this KIND
if we desired so 10 Dc. But agreed case was MACE
as 10 reported in Towards Repoits. The case cane
ND TO tie Supreme Court Of the United States rom the
United States District Court of Missouri and although
am follower Of the plow, and although be has per
haps studied law all his life, declare that John Z.
Breckenridge does not understand il, think can
present it 20 that of the componsst understand
ing can comprehend II.
will state the substance Of the thing. It was a
suit brought by man OF color called bred Scott,
first in the State Courts of Missouri, where II
was decided that Scott was free, then going mp, L
think to the supre-se Court of Missouri, where the
De csion was reversed and back IL was taken TO
the Circuit Court; the pleadngs were to this extent
plea Of statement was made-Dred Scott bringing an
action declaring that, 20 ct arms, one SANFORD nad
assaulted bir and also Harriet Scott, his wife, a1d
children. To this SANFORD, who is also upon the
record admitted TO be- know not if in reality, eiti-
zen OF New-York, pleaded in abatement, that bred
Scott and his wife and children were his slaves, and
that being slaves rather TO quote the language as
used in the pleadngs that he was the descendant OF
African slaves of color, negro, and therefore
be could not be a citizen Of the United States; and
Sanford called upon the Court to throw the case out
Of Court that they had jurisdiction, and that he
Sar dford should hold, as master, bred Scott.
So far as lhe bred Scott decision became law OF the
United States is simply thus that after the case was
twice argued in the Supreme Court OF the United
States, majority, standing five TO two, OF
the Justices, decided that man OF African
blood, descended from parents once slaves, could
l. of fba and
therefore, the Court having jurisdiction, i was
returned, with instructions TO sustain the Cueuit Court.
II at is what they decided Now desire to state that
in my humble Judgment bred Scott was not the slave
of Sanford and being free man of color, according
to the Constitution of the United States, when was
made he had right TO sue, and had right to he re-
leved from the existeIee OF "a et Gmts-to DC
free; and that was the, opinion OF justices
has read the decision of the Court in How
ards Reports that have spoken TO upon the subject,
bas invariably said TO me- that the opinion OF Justice
Curtis s the most conclusive piece of logic ever pre-
sened in all the books Of judicial decisions have II
at home, and declare that in my Judgment, there Is
no proposition in Euclid more clearly demonstrated
than that Not that bred Scott bad right to CITIZEN
ship-o hold Office and vote-rghts which many while
per,ons az for instance women have not but that ne
had right 10 the protection afforded by law; thet
being free man, by being carried iirst INTO free
State and then TO the territory ceded 70 the on.ed
States by France he had right TO cue and be sued
He never declared that Scott was entitled TO all the
privileges of citizen, but the Constitution says:
The eizen, o. sScn S's,e ssa sv ee sse "
Aid If Kentucky determines that the black man
cannot hold office in the Common wealth, black man
coming from Massachusetts cannot hold office; he is
but entitled TO the protection Of the laws gwen Tor the
security 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 to
sustain The kansas-Nebraska bill.
In pasfiDO, allow me TO say that we make no lsfue
wi IN The Supreme Court that subject. We aeknowl-
edge the Supreme Court decision TO be the law
OF the land and deny the allegation that we intend
Illegally and factiously 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.
OBITER DICTA
Gentlemen, time passes quickly, and Of course
10 deliberately into the argument upon the other
part of that which is claimed to be- the decision in the
bred Scott casethat is, that the law OF Eo1, FIRST
passed by the Confederation of States and renacted
by the House of Representatives at its very fret
sion under the Constitution in 1889, was unconstitu-
tioDal That is the dictum of these five Judges. Well
DOW, gentlemen, just let me state one or two strong
points that every man of common sense can unoer-
stand Ii is the practice OF all Courts-Cours OF Com
mon Law and Courts of Equity OF the United States,
and of all the Courts Of reason, justice and common
eepse earth, from the earliest time TO the lat
est day, that when questions come up for decision,
they decide the main question, and that other dcta,
that IT, words spoken Incidentally ard not TO the NAN
question, not law. There are Democratic lawyers
that hear me tonight, and they will bear me out In
this statement and it is right There are just reasons
for IT, because the attention of the judges being bound
to the main ssse they not be held responsible for
the incidental questions Of the case. Now, thar Is
hat Justices Mclean and Curtis tell u.s. and they are,
in my opinion. the ablest Judges upon the Bench. L
think Jnstice Curtis the abes Judge ever read after,
and he tells US that when the Supreme Court decided
in the case that il had no jurisdiction, then their
whole power ceased. That is what this Judge tells US,
that is what the Republicans say that is what every
honest man, unbiased by political associations and con-
siderations, must say say IT, gentlemen that in my
humble Judgment the rest Of the opinion is not law,
and in this am supported by Of the very ablest
judicial minds Of the United States. Not only so, bat
Justice Curtis shows that the Supreme Court has de-
cided again and again, that obiter dcta not law,
and not 10 he considered. There decisions in
that report quoted absolutely made 10 the effect that
these Incidental decisions that come in are not part OF
the law of the land Therefore we say, in denial of
what the Democratic party has said, that is not the
law of the land. Therefore 60 upon that subject,
not for changing, but rather we deny that II IL law,
and appeal 10 the country 10 decide between us.
We no allegiance 10 II as to law OF the United
States, but il ie yet open for free discussion by the
people that they may determine il under the Consti-
luton of the United States To much plead guilty.
POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE TERRITORIES.
Now, as this is an eventfu question, let dwell
little upon it, What were the terms OF the coniedera-
ton in regard to itl Before IL coded these terri
tories 20 the United States, il declared that il
Welded 10 them entire jurisdiction practical and po
cal, and they did so nominate il in the Bond !" The
trainers of the Constitution of 1879 this language
1.-THE Congress shall have power 10 dispose of and
make all ntedfn rules and regulations respecting the
territory or other property the Uned States" And
in practice they exercised the whole power. Now
here combined all the most potent data Of logical
eX posdoD:-1. The intention. ,. The language. j.
The practice: eight and sx-fourteen times did Com
grsss &C. upon this theory; and fourteen times did
they give the lie TO the pretended dctum OF the five
Judges, that Congress has power 10 eject Slavery
from the Territories.
TIE WORDS "RULES AND REGULATIONS"
1Iav IA this positive uoyver hy Conurpss